A word to newcomers: This thread is part of the ongoing Group Design Project (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13216), in particular building on some of the early concepts for mechanics laid out in Nailing Mechanics (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12821&highlight=groupdesign) in light of the themes of Humanity, Transcendence, and Free Will as refined in Nailing Axes (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13329&start=45). If you're unfamiliar but interested, the last two threads in particular can help you catch up, as will the "state of play" below. Don't feel you need to read every thread before posting to this one. All thoughtful input is welcome, and new perspectives are always helpful.
This thread is for posting draft mechanics, and then discussing, dissecting, revising, and re-posting them. My hope is that at the conclusion of this thread (and perhaps of any daughter threads spawned to deal with specific subtopics), we will have a working set of rules which we can use for some small-scale playtesting.
Our focus needs to be on the individual level, on Archivist:Host possession relationship which is the heart of the game; but we also need to keep in mind the "strategic" issues of time travel and changing history -- ideally by creating individual-level mechanics that scale up easily to the macro-level.
And to remind everyone of the rough working consensus at this point:
An Archivist is an incorporeal being, formerly human, who can travel through history and enter a kind of symbiosis with a human Host -- exercising more or less control over the Host, and making more or less use of its extraordinary powers through the Host, depending on how much the Archivist is willing to endanger the life, sanity, and individuality of that Host.
Humanity is everything which links a character to human beings: passions, relationships, duties. Ordinary people obviously have Humanity; so do Archivists, as a residue of their human past. Humanity can be eroded by the more brutal means of Archivist control over the Host, and by the more blatant uses of Archivist power through a Host, which can"burn out" the Host mentally and physically.
Transcendence is everything which links a character to the underlying truths of the cosmos. It is the defining characteristic of Archivists and the source of their powers; but it is also exhibited by mortal humans of extraordinary scientific, mystical, or artistic insight, and can even be imparted to a mortal by an Archivist "muse." (How rare and limited incidents of mortal Transcendence are, and whether they might come with Kewl Powerz, is an unresolved topic). Transcendence can eroded by immersion in the passion and sensuality of human existence, which can overwhelm the incorporeal Archivist and cause it to "fade out."
Thus Humanity and Transcendence exist, not in direct opposition, but in constant tension, and striking a balance between these two things is a delicate dilemma.
Finally, Free Will is the ability to make choices for yourself. While Free Will is not directly linked to either Transcendence or Humanity, it is possible for it to be affected by them, conceivably either for good -- as a deeper Humanity or higher Transcendent insight strengthens your identity -- or for ill -- as the ties of Humanity and the insistent truths of Transcendence leave you with only one choice to make. (How this works is another, crucial unresolved issue). A Host with high Free Will is more able to resist the suggestions and commands of the Archivist; but an Archivist can also risk revealing itself, essentially throwing itself on the mercy of its Host's Free Will in the hope of converting a relationship of control into one of alliance.
This is a very rough summary, of course, and anyone who sees a gaping hole in it is free to post. But otherwise I would ask that all posts be either at least reasonably complete outlines of mechanics, or comments on such mechanics.
Comments on Summary[/u]
I know the assumption has been that both host and Archivist could experience Burn and Fade, but I didn't think we'd firmly decided on that yet. Is that still up for discussion, or not? The mechanics I'm (re)posting below assume that Burn is for the host and Fade is for the Archivist.
Likewise, I didn't think it was yet written in stone that Archivists have Humanity.
Archivist Traits[/u]
Transcendence -- This is the measurement of the quintessence of what makes the Archivist what he is. In some sense it is a measurement of raw (potential) power. This should be defined as some arbitrary range of numbers greater than Humanity (defined below). Let's say it's a range from 1 to 21.
Otherworldly Knowledges -- This is a subset of traits that measure the Archivist's knowledge of "things man was not meant to know." Ex. -- All Things Are Connected (2), Lost Lore of Atlantis (6), True Timeline History (5), etc.
Logoi -- This is a subset of traits that measure the Archivist's ability to manipulate, alter, and control the physical world. In other words, Kewl Powerz. Ex. -- Laser-Beam Eyes (3), Inhuman Strength (4), Molecular Disintegration (2), etc.
Skills -- This is a subset of traits that measure the non-Transcendent abilities of the Archivist, be they remnants from their human existence, or things they've learned after becoming an Archivist. Ex. -- Gunsmithing (2), Piloting (1), Great Library Research (4), Archivist Politics (3), etc.
Fade -- A measure of the "psychic trauma" suffered by the Archivist. Fade will decrease over time, but very slowly. Enough Fade will cause damaging effects, such as loss of traits.
Host Traits[/u]
Humanity -- This the measurement of the quintessence of what makes a host human. It is a measurement of the host's vitality and lifeforce. This should be defined as an arbitrary number range less than the range of Transcendence. Let's define it as a range from 1-13.
Free Will -- This is a measurement of the host's identity and ability to resist compulsion in any form, specifically including Archivist control.
Passions -- This is a subset of everything that really matters to the host; the things that drive them. Passions are a source of greatness, be it good or evil. Ex. -- Love of Order (3), Creative Impulse (2), Hates Men (1), Loves Puzzles (5), etc.
Skills -- This is a subset of traits that measure the non-Transcendent abilities of the host. Ex. -- Gunsmithing (2), Piloting (1), Research (4), Politics (3), etc.
Burn -- A measure of the physical deterioration suffered by the host due to the presence of the Archivist. Burn never goes away. Enough Burn will cause damaging effects, such as loss of traits, blindness, rotting flesh, loss of limbs, etc.
How The Traits Interrelate[/u]
Transcendence and Humanity -- Quite simply, whichever is higher is who controls the host/Archivist fusion. An Archivist can increase their Transcendence at will (up to their maximum) and decrease it as easily. This represents the Archivist putting more or less of their own power into the host body. There should be some mechanical means that this can cause Humanity to decrease (not always, but the risk should be there). Whether we do this through a Fortune mechanic ("oops, rolled low, Humanity drops by one") or a resource-allocation mechanic ("okay, I increase Transcendence by nine, which reduces the host's Humanity by three") is something we can decide later.
Otherworldly Knowledges and Free Will -- As Otheworldly Knowledge is bestowed on the host, his free will may be affected. If the particular knowledge does not support or contradict a host's Passions (i.e. is nuetral in respect to Passions), Free Will remains unchanged. If it supports a host's Passions, Free Will is decreased (as the host realizes he has no choice but to do what is needed). If it contradicts a host's Passions...Free Will is...uhm...I don't know. Ideas?[/i] This is the most significant change from the previous version of the mechanics I posted in the Nailing Axes thread.
Passions and Logoi -- The more an Archivist uses their Logoi, the more the host's Passions or Humanity (player's choice) are decreased.
Skills -- If Archivist skills are used through a host, the host takes Burn. If host skills are used, there is no effect on the Archivist.
Fade -- This increases from a variety of actions, which aren't fully defined yet, but will certainly include when host Passions increase and when Humanity increases, whether from the Archivist's own actions or any other reason.
Burn -- This increases from a variety of actions, which aren't fully defined yet, but will include at least: when Passions are reduced, when Humanity is reduced, when the Archivist uses his own Skills through the host, when the host's Skills are increased by the Archivist, and when Logoi are used through the host.
Examples of Play[/b]
1. An Archivist wants his host to dive out an 82nd floor window. Naturally, the host's Passion of Survival (5) and Achieve Success (3) get in the way. Along with the host's Free Will of 7, this is 15 points against the action happening. The Archivist has a maximum Transcendence of 10 (he's new) so he can't just overpower the host. Instead, he opts to Burn the host: removing the Survival (5) Passion, he replaces it with the Logos Flight (5). The host now has a Logos that the Archivist can use at will, and has taken 5 points of Burn. In addition, the host only has 10 points to resist the Archivist now, and since the Archivist also has 10, the host is forced to do what the Archivist wants.
2. Using his host's Firearms (4) Skill, an Archivist takes out several street thugs. All but one are killed, and he is running away, dodging wildly. The Archivist uses the host's Firearms (4) Skill, along with his own Statistical Analysis (4) Skill (to determine where the thug will dodge next, of course) and takes him out with the combined 9 points. The host takes 4 points of Burn.
3. A Dark Archivist takes over a willful host, and decides to fry him right off the bat, so there won't be any trouble later on. Manifesting 15 points of Transcendence into the host forces the host's Humanity (12) to Humanity (0), for a 12 points of Burn. Ouch!
If Passions contridict the assertions of the Archivist, either through RP Insistance ("You simply MUST do this!") or through bestowment of Knowledge ("If you don't do it, this is what will happen-" *Run Armageddon cinimatic*), I'd say some kind of check is in order.
If a Passion contridicts a Knowledge bestowment, then a check should be made if Free Will is affected. If the Archivist bombs the check, the Host's related Passion and Free Will remain as high and the Archivist has to find another way around it.
How about this:
Knowledge is neutral to Passion --> no effect on host's Free Will
Knowledge supports Passion --> possible decrease in host's Free Will
Knowledge counters Passion --> possible increase in host's Free Will
One of the very first ideas for the game was that it wouldn't use dice, so I don't mechanically know how to put randomness in without some Fortune mechanic.
Hm, must have missed that part of the agreement.
I had assumed that at least for dealing with Hosts, who could be unpredictable, we'd have something.
Otherwise, sounds good to me!
1) Institutional memory
That we should put the emphasis on "karma" (i.e. nonrandom) over "fortune" (i.e. dice, cards, whatever) was in Tobias's very first post seeding our initial brainstorm thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12432&highlight=groupdesign). I accepted it as a "nice idea" at first but since have come strongly on board that karma-resolution fits much better than dice-rolling for a game that's not about taking chances so much as about making terrible choices in light of terrible knowledge -- with the notable exception that I think Free Will mechanics should have a die-roll involved, so that when you leave Free Will truly free, neither players nor GM can control the outcome.
Quote from: Andrew MorrisI know the assumption has been that both host and Archivist could experience Burn and Fade, but I didn't think we'd firmly decided on that yet. Is that still up for discussion, or not? The mechanics I'm (re)posting below assume that Burn is for the host and Fade is for the Archivist. Likewise, I didn't think it was yet written in stone that Archivists have Humanity.
As far as I'm concerned, everything's up for discussion, and nothing's written in stone. I mean, I'd be kinda shocked if we trashed the Archivist concept in favor of a game about giant mutant rabbits that included 50 pages of firearms combat rules, but no cows are sacred.
2) Andrew's proposal
I really like the idea that maximum Archivist Transcendence is always higher than maximum Host Humanity -- it puts the balance of power, and thus moral responsibility, squarely on the shoulders of the Archivists, i.e. the players, where it should be.
I'm intrigued by the sub-categories of Archivist (and human) traits. There's always a danger of kitchensinking when you start trying to cover all possible bases, but used with discipline this kind of breakout can help
emphasize what's important (e.g. in D&D, two of six basic traits are about physical toughness, two about magical potential; in
Sorcerer, all your "normal life skills" go into one score, "Cover"; in
My Life With Master, you have Self-Loathing etc.).
Now, I personally think that it might be more elegant to have Kewl Powerz be manifestations of a particular Uncanny Knowledge in action -- rather the way knowing something's True Name gives you power over it in many stories of sorcerey -- rather than have Power and Knowledge be separate traits. (This would incidentally allow Hosts and Archivists to have the same number of traits in perfect mirror-image). E.g., instead of "laser beam eyes:5" being a Power and "things man was not meant to know:3" being a Knowledge, you'd have one Logos, "I understand the fires of creation:4" and be able to use that to manifest laser-beam eyes (them's fiery!) or to pass unharmed through an inferno (have fun persuading your Host it's safe to do that, though...) or soak up solar energy with your skin and use it for power -- or anything else creative the player can come up wth.
And a question: Are the total values of an Archivist's traits, or at least its Knowledge and Power, capped by, or equal to, its total Transcendence in your scheme, Andrew?
Yeah, I'm somewhat on board with Sydney here. I think Karma systems make so much more sense, as this is a game that's all about choice and consequence. I'm not sure about inserting a Fortune mechanic for Free Will. On the one hand, it seems like a strange exception to throw in. On the other hand, I can see it serving to highlight the unknowable nature of the human spirit. I could probably go either way, it'll all come down to how elegantly it's executed.
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergI really like the idea that maximum Archivist Transcendence is always higher than maximum Host Humanity -- it puts the balance of power, and thus moral responsibility, squarely on the shoulders of the Archivists, i.e. the players, where it should be.
Right, that was the intent. It's one thing to screw over someone who has the power to defend themself, and it's quite another to do the same to someone who is, effectively, helpless.
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergNow, I personally think that it might be more elegant to have Kewl Powerz be manifestations of a particular Uncanny Knowledge in action ... This would incidentally allow Hosts and Archivists to have the same number of traits in perfect mirror-image
Eh? I thought the traits already were in mirror image, that was my intention when setting them up:
Humanity <---> Transcendence (pure strength and identity)
Free Will <---> Otherworldly Knowledges (core, unique abilities)
Passions <---> Logoi (power stemming from one's nature)
Skills <---> Skills (uhm...well...skills)
Burn <---> Fade (bad stuff that comes from imbalance)
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergAnd a question: Are the total values of an Archivist's traits, or at least its Knowledge and Power, capped by, or equal to, its total Transcendence in your scheme, Andrew?
I hadn't thought along those lines, but then the mechanics I posted are really just a core, with lots of room to refine and expand.
I really like the idea of the Host being able to screw over the Archivist through chance. Its one thing to look a GM square in the eye and say "Dude! You knew what I had riding on that and you STILL let him do that?! How could you?!" and another to go "Shit- he rolled an X, and with his Free Will that means he's going to oppose me on this!"
Least in my mind, it'd help create the illusion of another 'presence' at the table who says "No, I don't want to do that, it makes me scared like a little 5 year old whos seen the boogie man!"
As to Karma or Fate based on the rest of that, thats excellent. Point allocation type in duels with other Archivists if it comes to it (Throw 3 extra points into "Psionic Field" to keep the energy beam away from the host!) sounds excellent, but I wouldn't like GMs playing with the players through the Hosts. Thats not quite right.
Per everything else- kickin rad ^_^
Quote from: Andrew MorrisEh? I thought the traits already were in mirror image, that was my intention when setting them up:
Humanity <---> Transcendence (pure strength and identity)
Free Will <---> Otherworldly Knowledges (core, unique abilities)
Passions <---> Logoi (power stemming from one's nature)
Skills <---> Skills (uhm...well...skills)
Burn <---> Fade (bad stuff that comes from imbalance)
Which I find, frankly, to be a bit too many stats. That's just personal preference, though, nothing wrong with this approach per se.
I prefer:
Human .................. <-> ......... Archivist
Passions <-> Skills ................. Passions <-> Skills
............................................. Knowledge <-> Powerz
Sum = Humanity .................... Sum = Transcendence
(Now, In my proposal in the Nailing Axes thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=145216#145210) (last page), I 'name' Archivist Passions differently, but Passions is really what they are - that remnant of humanity and the skills associated with it.)
I'm not comfortable yet with the 'overload' mechanics I had in that post, but the basic layout of Host and Archivist stats (mentioned above) I DO like.
If you, as an archivist, want more control over the Host/symbiosis, that's fine, but once you start burning him, you also start burning his skills away. This makes immediate tension for the player - at what point am I reducing the effectiveness of my tool, even before I consider moral implications?
The burning away of skills from the Host also means there may be an on-going effect on the timestream BESIDES the actions the Archivist is actually having the host do - after all, the Host will live on afterwards (supposedly) and effect the timestream. I just thought there might be a nice parallel to describing 'aftershock' events from outright killing someone - it's basically removing the whole humanity. So whatever resolution system we use, if you kill someone, it's 100% of 1 HP (Human Personality) that goes into the resolution system, if you burn someone for 40%, 0.4 HP goes into the resolution system (and I should note that sometimes it could be good (in relation to Archivist goals) and sometimes bad to kill/burn someone). This on-going effect is another drawback from burning the host (encouraging players to accept Fade).
I'm enthusiastic about a mechanism that pushes a bit of burn on the host initially, but forces the 'good' Archivist to accept Fade himself at some point (Dark Archivists might just Burn their Host as clean as they like and never take Fade - one aspect of their Darkness).
Oh, and I feel strongly about having ALL humans start with the same humanity.
edit: oh, and I'm open to introduction of a Free Will mechanic in here. And different Fade/Burn mechanics based on these basic stats.
(also edited for layout)
Tobias, where do Free Will, Burn, and Fade fit in this system? I'm assuming that you're not doing away with them entirely, but if not, then that's just as many traits I proposed in the first place -- one more, actually.
Check me if I'm misunderstanding your ideas, but it looks to me like the only difference between our systems is that you didn't include a Free Will mechanic for hosts and added Passions to the Archivist traits.
Help me out here. What is the key difference that you are proposing?
I do like the idea that "all the other stuff" equals the Humanity or Transcendence of the host or Archivist. Not sure how we make Transcendence/Humanity work as a limiting factor for Archivist powers, though, so we should figure that out at some point.
Well, anything aside from Knowledge places a potential strain on the human body.
Its said the normal human uses only a fraction of our brain power, leaving what, something like 90% unused? Thats a lot of space.
-I don't think a Host should be Burned for possession and I don't think the Host should be Burned for basic interacting with 'the voices in my head'.
-Knowledge is a fairly passive tool for the Archivist. HOW he shares the Knowledge may determine the Burn. If the Archivist just tells a Host something, that shouldn't do anything. If the Archivist pulls a Clarance thing from Its a Wonderful Life, that might constitute Burning, as would "Understanding of Fires of Life: Laser Eyes"
Quote from: Andrew MorrisTobias, where do Free Will, Burn, and Fade fit in this system? I'm assuming that you're not doing away with them entirely, but if not, then that's just as many traits I proposed in the first place -- one more, actually.
Did you check the link? Over there:
1. Burn is the 'rubbing out' of Host Passions and associated Skills
2. Fade is the 'rubbing out' of Archivist Passions (& skills) and Knowledge (& Logoi/Powerz)
3. Free Will isn't in there because I was arguing that Free Will shouldn't be represented by a score. Since people do seem to be wanting a Free Will score that can be 'thrown' in different directions, I'm looking at putting one in.
Quote
Check me if I'm misunderstanding your ideas, but it looks to me like the only difference between our systems is that you didn't include a Free Will mechanic for hosts and added Passions to the Archivist traits.
That's certainly a way to look at it. :) In fact, re-examining it, your system is simpler than mine (and that's good!). Guess my earlier comments were due to one system being my own (and thus more familiair and seemingly simpler).
On Free Will: see above.
On 'adding Passion for Archivists' - yeah, you could look at it this way.
Basically, what I want to communicate is that there are only 2 'primal' stats: Passions and Knowledges
Passions are what make things Human. From Passions always derive skills.
Transcendental Knowledge is the tie of a thing to Transcendence. From it always derives a Powr.
The sum of Passions is Humanity for the Human, The sum of Passions and Knowledge is Transcendence for the Archivist (which is why I originally called Archivist Passion something else - so that it wouldn't be mistaken for Humanity).
That's about it. De-coupling skills from passions would allow your system to work just fine as well. I like the thought of the double-edged sword of Burning your host, though: you destroy his opposition (his Passion), but possibly his usefulness (skill) at the same time.
daMoose_Neo: i guess I could live with the Host not being burned for posession - but how about the archivist taking some Fade, then? Tough Choices are a central theme of the game (and making the player choose between 2 negatives certainly is one), but it might bog down the game (or even make it annoying if there's too much focus on negatives all the time).
How about an "Archivist's Field Kit" then?
The Player/Archivist has all this information and traits they possess.
Now, its time to possess a Human.
According to the HTT/AT discussion, we agreed Archivists left a portion of themselves in the Great Library and were capable of taking certain information with them even from other Archivists to HTT. So, why not do exactly that?
When possessing, see how much "room" the Host has for the Archivist baggage and make the player select which options to take with them and which to 'leave' with their otherself in the Great Library.
An Archivist could look at one situation and see that "Understanding of Sentiant Life" is useful to the situation while "Understand of Fires of Creation" isn't. Thus, while in the Host, the Archivist has access to knowledge and Kewl Powerz related to the "Sentiant Life" trait (ESP, Life sign tracking, initmate personal knowledge of complete strangers) but not the "Fires of Creation" aspects (Laser eyes, history of a location (the Creation of it))
Thus, the player has to make choices, but not so tough. It isn't damaging to the Archivist because something HAS to stay behind, it may as well be the useless stuff. Making them choose between losing one of the two forever though, would royally suck.
Tobias:
Okay, I think I see the key differences now. I thought of Fade and Burn in much the same way you explain it. What I was thinking would be that instead of automatically taking traits away, Burn and Fade would have a numerical score. Once that score reached a predetermined threshold, it would reset at zero, and something (like a trait) would be taken away. For example, you're at 8 Fade and take 3 more points of Fade. Your Fade would now be 1 and you'd lose, say, a point of a particular Logos.
As to free will not being represented by a score, personally, I think we should have it. How else would we model the fact that some humans have more or less power to resist an Archivist? Of course we could say that they don't differ in their ability to resist Archivists, if we wanted to go that way.
So, going back to the main difference for a moment, check me again. In your model, Skills stem from Passions and Logoi stem from Otherworldly Knowledges, correct?
Thus, when a Passion was "burned out" of the host, the related skills would also be lost, right? Likewise, an Archivist who lost Otherworldly Knowledge due to Fade would lose the Logoi attached to the particular Knowledge? I like the "feel" of this setup, but does it mean that a host can never have a Skill if they are not passionate about it? For example, I'm very good at my job (in game terms, I'd have a high Skill at it). But I don't have a Passion about it one way or the other. Could we still represent situations like this in the game?
Nate:
Let's call the point where Archivist intervention begins to be dangerous (to host or Archivist or both) the "danger line." You're saying the danger line should be after communication with the host, but before the granting of powers. Is that right? My personal feeling is that the danger line should be after possessing the host (experiencing through the host's senses) but before even communication. I think there should be a very narrow area of safety for the players. I could be swayed though, so I'd like to know your reasons for setting the danger line where you suggest.
Assuming the intellectual wavelength from the HTT/AT Thread, I'd assume an Archivist would 'jump in' to the Host's mind functions somehow. As I said as well, Humans use less than their entire mental capacity, which leaves a lot of space for something to jump in.
Also assuming Archivists act muses, the most intelligent people can still function very well in socioty. A few are driven mad by a complete understanding of one field or another. But, for the most part, the folks function very well, even if they have an extradimensional force whispering in their ear.
Doing so is really no different than speaking right to the Host. Imagine if instead of thinking something, that internal voice you hear in your mind says instead "I'm an extradimensional entity and here's what you have to do."
Disconcerting, yes, but damaging? I can't really say so. The Host may notice *something* prior to full disclosure, but couldn't be much more than a headache or slight muscle ache, the body becoming accustomed to another presence also exercising influance over the body. The human body, given proper chance, can adapt to a lot that its not normally accustomed to: Pain, Temperature, Body deformations
Looking back at what we said Archivists do aside from outright bestowment of Kewl Powers and such, I really can't see the great minds of our world suffering from 'Burn' and loss of self. Really, they lived like any other person, excelling in their field and then fading off into old age. Some grew more eccentric, but that stems more from the extreme understanding than anything else. Insurance Accuaries who deal only with numbers are very intelligent people...but many live under the assumption the numbers CREATE reality, not REPRESENT reality.
I just have a hard time as seeing knowledge as 'damaging'.
Nate, let's look at this from a different angle. Instead of using reality as a justification for determining where the danger line lies, let's figure out what would improve the game experience. Here's how I would see the spectrum of "stuff that damages a host," from least to greatest:
Possession --> Communication --> Boosting the Host's Abilities --> Granting the Host New Abilities --> Granting the Host Otherworldly Knowledge --> Granting the Host Logoi
Let's get some comments and see if everyone agrees with that, or if some alteration is in order. After we've established the spectrum, we can then figure out where the danger line should be. Sound good?
Works~
I just have a nasty tendency of assimilating real portions of the world and mythical/fantasy. It helps me ground myself and feel about a little more than jumping in blind myself. You'll find me doing this ^_^
Quote from: Andrew MorrisTobias:
Okay, I think I see the key differences now. I thought of Fade and Burn in much the same way you explain it. What I was thinking would be that instead of automatically taking traits away, Burn and Fade would have a numerical score. Once that score reached a predetermined threshold, it would reset at zero, and something (like a trait) would be taken away. For example, you're at 8 Fade and take 3 more points of Fade. Your Fade would now be 1 and you'd lose, say, a point of a particular Logos.
A rollover mechanism like that would work, sure. Make it less dangerous, maybe, but that's easily tweaked in the numbers.
Quote
As to free will not being represented by a score, personally, I think we should have it. How else would we model the fact that some humans have more or less power to resist an Archivist? Of course we could say that they don't differ in their ability to resist Archivists, if we wanted to go that way.
It depends on where you want the focus of the game to lie, I guess. If you want to focus on the mind-struggle, Free Will's really important. If you just want Wire-fu and a sweeping arc of history, who cares about the struggle?
(Note: this may mean Free will's a score with a Max depending on group preference).
And, of course, Free Will may resist the Archivist (or not), but in the end, the Archivist will always have the power to shout it down - the question is - should he? (I would like there to be a HTT effect when you severely burn a Host).
Quote
So, going back to the main difference for a moment, check me again. In your model, Skills stem from Passions and Logoi stem from Otherworldly Knowledges, correct?
Thus, when a Passion was "burned out" of the host, the related skills would also be lost, right? Likewise, an Archivist who lost Otherworldly Knowledge due to Fade would lose the Logoi attached to the particular Knowledge? I like the "feel" of this setup, but does it mean that a host can never have a Skill if they are not passionate about it? For example, I'm very good at my job (in game terms, I'd have a high Skill at it). But I don't have a Passion about it one way or the other. Could we still represent situations like this in the game?
You've got it.
And I could probably model 'you' fairly well with a Passion-Skill combination. For instance:
Professional Pride <-> Job X
You may not care about the Job itself, but you might care about being a professional worker. Or:
Good Family Provider <-> Job X
And if none of these (or others) fit: well, do I need to be able to model you, for purposes of this game? Maybe it's a genre thing I want, the Passion-Skill match.
Quote
Nate:
Let's call the point where Archivist intervention begins to be dangerous (to host or Archivist or both) the "danger line." You're saying the danger line should be after communication with the host, but before the granting of powers. Is that right? My personal feeling is that the danger line should be after possessing the host (experiencing through the host's senses) but before even communication. I think there should be a very narrow area of safety for the players. I could be swayed though, so I'd like to know your reasons for setting the danger line where you suggest.
In later post, you list the increasing levels of danger (and I agree with them). My Simmist tendencies are to say danger starts right at posession. It's immediately balanced by my game design voice that says that you shouldn't restrain and burden players too much when doing the simple/essential things (gaming friction?). Simmi says: "burn for all the easy steps, but easily recovered burn". Player says: "I don't want to do all that book-keeping and rolling for those easy bits over and over again" (assuming many posessed hosts).
I just realised your danger progression is incomplete (or not detailed enough). There's a difference between posession without motor control and posession with motor control (riding along or taking the wheel). First thought would be to make the progression:
Possession (passive) -> Communication -> Possession (subtle motor control) -> Possession (clear motor control) > Boosting Host Abilities > ...
I'd say it's likely that many Archivist will develop mental/memory control effects, to balance/repair/subdue harmful memories. I guess you could rate Archivist actions on a 'Intrusiveness' scale (and couple increasing Burn to increasing Intrusiveness) and have a mental control/management skill for the Archivist, with the max skill level the max level of intrusiveness he could manage.
Again, this is only relevant if you're really into 'playing' the details of posession. If you're not, you can skip all this. (Remember the customisation of the game). So 'Beginner Possession Rules', 'Advanced Possession Rules'.
I'm spinning off out of control here (Sydney, Help!), but the final 'book' could have:
1. Introduction
2a. Character Rules - lite
2b. Character Rules
3a. Possession Rules -lite
3b. Possession Rules (Free will's a good one to put here, I guess)
4a. Action! Rules - lite
4b. Action! Rules
5a. Timetravel/HTT Rules - lite
5b. Timetravel/HTT Rules
You want a campaign focussing on Archivist/Host interaction?
2b + 3b + 4a + 5a.
You want a campaign focussing on Wire-fu?
2a + 3a + 4b + 5a
You want a campaign focussing on Timetravel/HTT?
... guess ... ;)
Mix'n'match to flavor.
I think Tobias has what I'm thinking in mind too, with the "invasiveness".
I don't see riding along/observing as damaging or invasive. I don't see my telling the Host "We need to do this" invasive. Start using the Host's body in whatever way other than a ride, however, and yea. Thats invasive.
If we're not concerned with specific hosts or time frames and the 'grander, sweeping story arc', we'll have all sorts of times where *POOF!* I'm in a police officer at a crime scene- I tell the officer "Pull up that third floor board". Officer shakes his head, looks at the floor board. "Hey, Mac, come here...something's bugging me about this floor board..." and *Poof!* Gone. Nothing to it. Officer never knows he didn't have that idea, nothings happened to him, I exerted no actual control. I just suggested.
So, if we're spending a half hour jumping around from Hosts like that, anyone want to keep track of the book keeping involved with that? Me don't think so.
"Danger Line" should fall between Communicating and "Motor Control - Subtle" in my opinion, just to keep bookwork down if nothing else.
And actually, I like that brake down Tobias! Does give you an easy way to say "Okay, we're running a grand, sweeping adventure through time tonight!" Or "We're doing a deep introspective morality tale tonight".
Oh, and I see I forgot something as well. This makes 'communication' (as revelation) a risky option (given Host Free Will), but will, if things go well, not make the archivist have to be more intrusive in the future. If the communication goes badly, well, burning and being intrusive was always one of the options, it's still there.
Had an idea to simplify some of this ala Tobia's wonderful formula ^_^
Observe - Communicate - Possess
1) Observe-
Exactly that. Utilize the Host's sences, feelings and what not, for input only.
2) Communicate
A) Archivist-As-Muse: Archivist is a small voice in the back of your mind, suggests, but nothing overt
B) Revelation of Self: "Hey Buddy, I'm from another plane of existance and I know the future!"
C) Revelation of Truth: Cosmic level stuff, fates, futures, inner workings of reality
3) Possession
A) Subtle motor control: Host looking over books on a shelf, running along with his finger and his eyes fall on a title below it
B) Overt Motor control: "Grab that now!" *Host grabs book*
C) Bestowment of Cosmic Powers: Host now has a form of telepathy and knows exactly whats in the book as though he just read it.
D) Supression of Host - Archivist in complete control.
I think the danger line should fall in Communication, between B & C.
Observation is very harmless. Communication-Suggestion isn't anything either, we all have these weird ideas we have no idea where they came from ("Ya know, something in the back of my mind keeps nagging me about making a game about Time Travel and ghosts, but I just don't know...") and sometimes act on them, sometimes don't.
Revelation of Self is just about close. Voices in the head saying they're from another world, I think I need another stiff drink.
Revelation of Truth, though, involves many things man shouldn't know or deal with, and from there on the Archivist intrusion is more blatant.
Hmmm, if that order of intrusiveness was supposed to represent anything real, I'd argue against it. I rather think subtle motor control (stutter, shiver, flick of the eyes, tripping, a slight deviation over a mile's walk) would be less intrusive than voices in your head (and certainly cosmic truths).
I guess it depends on how you see Burn - is it physical, mental, or both? And how resilient you expect a Host to be to certain effects.
But I think we need the best scale for the game, so I'm willing to entertain this order as well.
(Just had a thought that goes against everything I've said about Burn and Fade so far - what if you Burned the host when you talk to him, and the archivist Fades whenever something in your 'Possess' category is done? ("The thrill of the fleshride"))
(That's not writing new mechanics, though, so I'll shelve this thought until I can come up with another concise mechanics post).
Yeah, that's a good point, Tobias. Looking at it that way, I have to agree with you and revise my earlier thoughts on the matter. I'd see the voice in my head telling me about the fate of the world as more instrusive than pretty much anything else on the list, except for Logoi.
Of course, the question is really whether Burn is caused by "intrusiveness" or something else. I saw it as being caused by sheer Transcendental power, personally. In that model, communication requires less power than even subtle control. I still like this idea, too.
So, what does everyone think? Is Burn caused by "intrusiveness" or Transcendental power? Or is it caused by something else?
Time for Patented Sydney Numbered Points again.... I've been very distracted this week (teething baby) so please bear with me as I roll back to some earlier parts of the discussion before I catch up with where you all are now.
1) Randomness
Quote from: NateIts one thing to look a GM square in the eye and say "Dude! You knew what I had riding on that and you STILL let him do that?! How could you?!" and another to go "Shit- he rolled an X, and with his Free Will that means he's going to oppose me on this!" Least in my mind, it'd help create the illusion of another 'presence' at the table ....
That's exactly what I was thinking of when I argued for a die roll representing key Free Will moments (when everything else in the system should be Karma). If the GM is roleplaying the free will aspects of the Host, the social pressure on him/her is potentially gamebreaking and probably leads to fudging. Leaving it up to a die roll createsa real sense for the players of "shit, we really can't control this, free will is dangerous!" and thus makes for a real dilemma. Just as none of the real people sitting arond around the table can control the die roll, none of the characters can control Free Will, if it's truly Free.
Now, if we have a Free Will score (which I know Tobias dislikes), then that allows the game to have situations where the die indicates a character's Free Will choice comes down one way, but it still doesn't affect the outcome, because their passions or Archivist control or both are so overwhelming. I think this is a good way to depict the fact that even weak-willed people can make choices, or try to, and then be swept along by forces that overmaster them (e.g. "the spirit is willing but the body is weak").
2) Skills deriving from Passions
Like Andrew, I'd originally assumed there'd have to be some kind of miscellaneous trait (I called them "neutral traits" at one point) that didn't relate to Humanity or Transcendence but which were necessary to depict the purely functional abilities of characters. But Tobias's counter-argument hits home: if you don't care about something, you're probably not good enough at it to matter. Even in the case of being good at your boring desk job, something must have driven you to get that good: either you really like it for some reason ("Passion: I love accounting"), or you really like what being good at it gets you ("Passion: Wealth" or "Passion: Provide For My Family"), or you've built your whole identity on being good at that job ("Passion: I'm a damn good accountant") -- look at all the people who were psychologically, not just financially, destroyed by lay-offs because their identity was under assault.
If we accept this principle, then we can streamline the system so that humans have Passions/Humanity (and, in rare cases, Transcendence), Archivists have Logoi/Transcendence (and, I'd argue, residual Humanity), and all Kewl Powerz are just particular manifestations deriving from Transcendent Traits/Logoi, and all Practical Skillz flow are particular manifestations deriving from Human Traits/Passions.
Besides streamlining, the really neat part of this is that skills are narrow and dry things, but a Passion can express itself in lots of different ways in different situations. Take the accountant guy two paragraphs ago. If he's driven by "Passion: I love accounting," then he can probably use that passion for doing all sorts of math, but not for office politics; if he's driven by "Passion: Wealth," he's good at anything that makes him money, but not necessarily at analyzing numbers in the abstract; if he's driven by "Passion: Provide for my family," he may turn out to be awfully handy fixing a leaky roof or coaching a Little League game, too. (This mirror-images how one Logos like "I dance with the fires of creation" can manifest in multiple and sometimes surprising waves). Just giving the character who's good at his job a high skill in "accounting" is a lot more precise but has a lot less story potential than going back to what drives him to be good at that job.
Thus you'd have a character who has "Passion: Jock" rather than high athletics skills, and he'd be different from a person with the same high athletics skills but driven by "Passion: Stronger Than You, Little Man" (the jock's probably a lot easier to hang out with); and a person with high combat skills is going to have a very different code of behavior depending on whether he's driven by "Passion: Great Warrior" or "Passion: Good Soldier" --one of these guys may go off on heroic vengeance quests, the other will sit and peel potatoes, and peel them damn well, if you order him to.
And, as Tobias said, this kind of mechanic means that burning away Passions makes the Host less good at all sorts of things, whereas a system that kept Skills distinct and thus safe from burn-out would not raise that dilemma.
Which leads us to the Big Question of the moment...
3) What is Burn, anyway? Physical, Mental, or Both?
I think both -- but I find the mental kind more interesting than the physical. Physical burn-out where your teeth and hair fall out because an unearthly being is pouring its unnatural power through your feeble mortal frame is horrifying; mental burn-out where your identity fractures into pieces because you've just figured out that an unearthly being is (to use Andrew's phrase from a few threads back) "wearing you like a cheap suit" is really, really horrifying.
And if the physical effects are really powerful, that means they're probably blatant enough that the Host notices something's weird ("Gee, why does everything I look at turn green and explode?"), which means the mental effects kick in automatically. So the high-risk ad high-drama end of the spectrum should be anything the Archivist does that makes its presence obvious -- be it by telling the Host something mind-blowing, or by using the Host's body to do something mind-blowing: In either case, the Host is going to notice and risk going nuts.
Very slick.
#2) I've liked it from the get-go. Its a very nice, very explainable way to do things you didn't think of at chargen or that we didn't think of when writing.
#3) I'd almost argue granting of Powerz requires Revelation of Self.
Going to back to the scale above, maybe we have an interlapping scale?
1, 2A, 3A, 2B, 3B, 2C, 3C (or maybe even flip flop 2C and 3B on scale of effect).
Andrew, I'd argue that "intrusiveness" is how much the Archivist is pouring himself into the Host, so yes, the more intrusvive the Archivist is being the more painful it is to the Host.
Maybe gauge the phsyical effects by something? It'd be damn scary to have a DA anyhow, but our descriptions of encounters with them show a creature, not a human, whipping power about like mad. I think the physical degeneration does a nice job of driving home how little the DA's really care and give the PCs a measuring stick and a "Don't be like that!" point of reference.
Sydney, I thought that the Logoi were the cool powers of the Archivist, rather than the source of the cool powers.
As for humans occasionally having Transcendence, I'm all for it -- in one of the "modules" we discussed early on. For now, I suggest that we not investigate the how or why of it, especially not until we actually nail down the terms and mechanics we are discussing.
But I'm against Archivists having Humanity. Not that I think they don't retain some element of their human selves, but because it seems to have no game function. When Humanity is the trait that balances Transcendence and determines who is in control of the hybrid entity, what is the point of the Archivist having a trait that is essentially only useful to the host? The logical alternative (logical to me, at least) is that Archivists would have Passions and dependent skills, just as humans do. That concept I dislike somewhat, simply because one of the things we discussed about Archivists is that they tend to lose their human drives and motivations. But of course that really doesn't help us figure out where Archivists get their skills from -- any ideas?
Burn...hmm...what is Burn? Well, my take is that it's both physical and mental "bad stuff" that happens when an Archivist uses his host too hard. The way I see it, mental Burn happens from granting knowledges, skills, and understanding to a host, while physical Burn happens due to boosting the host's abilities or granting them powers.
I'm going to quote myself in this post. Apologies in advance. Any pretentiousness is unintentional and the product of being raised by an academic....
1) Transcendence
Quote from: Andrew MorrisSydney, I thought that the Logoi were the cool powers of the Archivist, rather than the source of the cool powers.
Actually, to quote the thread where I think the term was first proposed (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12821&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15),
Quote from: I, myself, not being pedantic or anything,Logoi (sing. logos), an ancient Greek term meaning variously "word," "reason," and "the governing principles of the universe"
which makes it a better term for the underlying knowledge than for its particular manifestations & effects. But terms are highly negotiable.
And I'd agree that we don't need to worry about defining how human beings have Transcendence for now; that presumably is highly customizable -- a campaign that's focused on messing with the lives of Great Artists would apply this notion very different from one focused on Mad Scientists which would be very different from one that had human sorcerors and superheroes running about.
Quote from: Andrew MorrisI'm against Archivists having Humanity. Not that I think they don't retain some element of their human selves, but because it seems to have no game function. When Humanity is the trait that balances Transcendence and determines who is in control of the hybrid entity, what is the point of the Archivist having a trait that is essentially only useful to the host?
Actually, in my early rules draft (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12821&highlight=groupdesign), an Archivist's Humanity had two game functions, neither of which helped the Host worth a damn:
1) While in the Great Library, a high Humanity trait allowed an Archivist better intuitive understanding of human nature, and thus more control over what kind of Host it could find to possess.
2) Once possession had begun, though, an Archivist's Humanity trait was particularly prone to screwing over both Archivist
and Host: If an Archivist's human trait ("passion" in our current terms) was triggered, the Archivist took Fade -- because its residual human nature comes to the fore -- but the Host simultaneously took Burn -- because the human nature being expressed through the Host was
someone else's human nature. Imagine you're a normal guy, going about your business, and suddenly some alien presence in your head loses its cool and starts filling you with andrenaline and rage at racial injustice, or causes you to run off after that rare beetle you just saw and try to capture it for study. (Note that this is all about Burn being That Which Messes With Your Head, as opposed to the physical side).
Now, these aren't actually essential game functions. They're not necessary to express the fundamental dilemma of the game -- the Premise, if you like -- which I think is something like "how much will you sacrifice individuals (including yourself) in the name of humanity in general?" You can address that premise just fine without them. But they do give you additional, secondary avenues for addressing said Premise; whether they're worth the added rules complication or not is open for discussion.
But my bottom-line reason for wanting Archivists to have some Humanity is that we all agree (I think) that they used to be human and their residual humanity is important. And -- now I'm just speaking for myself, not pretending to express any consensus of the group -- if it's really that important, then it ought to have an expression in the mechanics. {EDIT: I could be wrong on this principle, or I could be right about it and there could be a better of way expressing this point mechanically}.
2) Burn
I don't think we should get too tied to any particular ascending scale of actions where A causes no burn, B causes a little, and C causes a lot. Nor do I want to get locked into "physically manifesting transcendent powers causes physical Burn, and mentally conveying trancedent knowledge causes mental burn." As I've said above, if the Archivist manifests any physical effect too blatantly, the Host will get weirded out mentally as well; and conversely, you could imagine that too much Uncanny Knowledge can manifest physically: maybe your Cyberdyne engineer Host doesn't go crazy from seeing your Vision of Armageddon, maybe he stays level-headed at the price of bottling up all that horror so he gets an ulcer, high blood pressure, insomnia, and all his hair going white overnight.
So I think the type of Transcendence manifested is less important than the degree. You can probably get away with doing subtle things, either physically or mentally, with little risk of Burn -- your Host's hand just moves a little faster than he ought to be able to, or his senses pick up a detail he normally wouldn't have noticed, and his body can take the strain, and his mind can say "wow, I was really on, wasn't I?" and not worry about it. Keep ramping up the power, and the ability of the Host's body to absorb it, and of the Host's mind to rationalize it away, both start to fall apart in tandem.
We all want vestiges of human nature in the archivist. Not enough for a humanity score - enough to make them something we can feel about.
Is archivist (vestigial) human nature neccesary for the player? Yes
Does that require the archivist to have Passions/Skills? Only inasmuch it drives home the point that there is some human nature left. Would it be fun to have some vestigial human skills that the archivist can bestow on the host ("I never knew the First Lady's Mom could pick lock so well!") or cause the archivist some trouble ("Joe sure started drinking heavily, I wonder what's up?") - probably yes.
So, basically, I think we all agree anyway. I agree with you lot, at least. :)
Quote
2) Burn
So I think the type of Transcendence manifested is less important than the degree. You can probably get away with doing subtle things, either physically or mentally, with little risk of Burn -- your Host's hand just moves a little faster than he ought to be able to, or his senses pick up a detail he normally wouldn't have noticed, and his body can take the strain, and his mind can say "wow, I was really on, wasn't I?" and not worry about it. Keep ramping up the power, and the ability of the Host's body to absorb it, and of the Host's mind to rationalize it away, both start to fall apart in tandem.
Sounds good. That scale is probably still useful (even if only as a code of conduct), but I like the 'degree' thing. And it's easily customisable, if a group wants to say: "All communication-effects are burn-free, all motor control causes burn over a certain noticableness, .." etc. etc. etc.
The advantage of having the Intrusiveness scale, though, is not having to quantify degrees of motor control or mental control any more than already done on the scale. Unless you just count 'degree' as the measure of raw power you're pouring in (Burn).
Maybe the degree could be the amount of passion you have to burn away to stop resistance to the action you want? Few are going to feel passionate about knocking over a coffee-cup, some might feel more passionate if there are divorce papers, say, sitting next to it.
(And then, who decides if Passion is applicable? Or do we just leave that setting up to the 'chosen evaluation/resolution agent (GM/group/player)')
Decisions decisions.
Who do we make up write some elegant coherent mechanics now? ;)
Reading this thread, it occurs to me that the Passions are coming to resemble Aspects in Fate ... and if we redefine Logoi as the knowledge that confers Kewl Powerz, they also resemble Fate's Aspects. So why not push that resemblance further and make use of the invocation rule for Fate Aspects? A possible ruleset:
Hosts have Passions, which govern mundane skills; Archivists have Logoi, which govern superhuman skills (and powers), and may have Passions as well. It's much easier for Archivists to gain Logoi than Passions, so an Archivist's Passions will usually be remembered from his mortal life. (Rarely, Hosts will have Logoi.)
At the start of a possession, an Archivist does not know (for certain) what a Host's Passions and skills are -- records in the Great Library give an external account of the Host's actions. Therefore the GM keeps the Host's character sheet secret, but gives the Archivist's player a verbal summary of it. The Archivist declares how much of his character he wants to express during the possession (this is his Presence, a numerical rating); he can change this as often as he likes.
As the possession is played out, either the Host's or the Archivist's Passions, or the Archivist's Logoi, may be triggered by events (that is, the GM invokes the Passions/Logoi to force the Host into an action.) The Archivist can react to the invocation as follows:
If the Host's Passion is invoked, the Archivist can let it pass, in which case nothing happens to Host or Archivist; or the Archivist can suppress it, in which case the Host takes Burn, equal to the strength of the Passion. If several of the Host's Passions are invoked, the Archivist may partly suppress the "wrong" Passions until their total rating is less than the total for the "right" Passions. The Host then takes one point of Burn for each level of Passion that was suppressed.
If the Archivist's Logos is invoked, the Archivist can again let it pass, in which case the Host takes Burn equal to the Archivist's current Presence or the strength of the Logos, whichever is less. Or, the Archivist can suppress the Logos, in which case he takes that amount of Fade. If the Archivist's Passion is invoked, letting it pass gives the Host Burn as before, and the Archivist takes an equal amount of Fade; suppressing it gives the Archivist that amount of Burn, without affecting the Host.
Only the GM can invoke a Host's Passions. The Archivist's player can invoke his Logoi and Passions intentionally, with effects as before (though in this case he doesn't get the choice to suppress!) This changes the Host's action if the total rating of Passions and Logoi invoked in the Archivist's favor exceeds the total Passions invoked in favor of another action. (A plurality suffices -- the Archivist doesn't have to beat the total of all other choices.)
Finally, if the Host has a Logos that gets invoked, the Archivist can let it pass and the Host takes Burn; or he can suppress it -- in which case the Host becomes aware that he's possessed, and the Archivist loses the power to affect the Host's actions by invoking traits. (Surprise!)
This doesn't handle the "satori" technique, or Archivists trying to communicate rationally with Hosts ... but I have a feeling that, where just any Host can be possessed, illumination and direct speech should require a Host who's prepared to talk to spirits. A Host engaged in prayer, for instance, or in meditation; or Hosts under the influence of psychedelic drugs; or even, at a low level, dreaming Hosts. Or Hosts who have Logoi already, of course. Different situation entirely.
Another thing: if a character accumulates enough Burn, he loses a point in one of his Passions, and if a character accumulates enough Fade, he loses a point in one of his Logoi.
You will notice that I didn't provide for Fade in a Host. If Fade is damage to Transcendence, there won't be many Hosts that could take Fade ...
I'll tell you this honestly - I'm having a hard time finding the good points in this post (which I can tell there are, but they won't sink in my brain). The reason is the (adversarial?) player-GM interaction you're describing.
While I agree that the Great Library description of a Host is external and some surprising passions (item: who creates the surprise c.q. the passion list of the Host?) may exist, I want the player to have authority over the symbiont and what happens. I expect the player to be responsible enough to adress premise on his own when the Host would resist the Archivist. (In other words, not ignore what's going on as the Archivist destroy everyone around without regard to passions).
I prefer the Host description to be made by the GM (or other decision agent) and then passed to the player, whos got total control from then on.
Side notes:
- I'm starting to be 'against' (Burn + Fade) for both Host and Archivist. I guess just Burn for the Host, and Fade (or Burn) for the archivist, will do. It boils down to 'damage', essentially, and I don't think we need 2 damage traits (just like there need be no division between mental burn or physcial burn).
- I love the prayer/meditation/drugs thing... so obvious, but I hadn't thought of it yet.
- I'd rather not have a traditional GM for this game - I'd prefer shared authority over the players, and all players pushing their own (pro-active) Archivist agenda (not just responding to external stimuli). I have visions, also, of the players being (possibly almost) the only Archivists there are. If the dark side is there, mechanically, and the player's goals are tempting enough, some will go to the darkside eventually... :)
But that's just me, maybe. I can accept some of my idea's being 'expansion modules'. ;)
- edit from this point on: oh, and I like Burn being a direct and crude thing when it hurts/supresses passions. No 'tally up the amounts of Burn from different sources and after a certain threshold lose 1 passion, re-set Burn to 0' deal, but straight crude stuff. You're doing subtle stuff that doesn't go against a passion? Fince, go ahead. You're doing stuff that's noticed (and resisted?) start burning passion. This raises a point - if the resistance comes from a certain passion, should it be that specific passion that's burned, instead of just generally excerting control? It's a nice thought, but might leave a trail of gutted useless husks (since you're likely to use the Host for the skill/position he's in, which is likely something he's passionate about). So I probably prefer matching a hosts passion with your Archivist 'Presence' or 'Intrusivenss' or 'Burn' (which is really what it is, after all). It also means that if a Host is a 10-point being, you'd never have to Burn him for more than 6 (because he'll have 4 passion left, and 6>4) IF you're just using him for his skills/passions. If you're using him for more than that (Powerz! Logoi (which term I am now using as Knowledge)!), there go the white hear, stooped gait and decrepid teeth... ;)
(The above is no more than the mechanics I've been suggesting all along, still needs some tweaking to incorporate Free Will.)
On the Free Will thing - does it really need to be a score? Does Free Will vary from person to person (making it a Willpower-like trait), or is it just some cosmic thing bestowed upon every (semi)sentient entity? If the latter, Free Will just might manifest as the score on a die roll...
You all get the feeling I'm rambling a lot recently? ;)
edit 2: clarity
1) Who activates Passions & Logoi?
I like the idea of the player not knowing all the Host's Passions until one of them is stirred up by circumstances; I'd think of this less as the GM invoking them tactically/adversarially than as the GM making a judgment call about what circumstances might reasonably trigger a given Passion (N.B. this is both highly subjective and Simulationist, I know).
Still, I'm not so worried about the "adversarial GM" issue as Tobias is -- although allowing GM-less play as one of our customizable options would be Way Cool. In that case, presumably you could allow another player to add traits to your Host and hide them from you until they're triggered by circumstances, in lieu of the GM doing it: This would preserve the element of uncertainty for the player about his/her character's Host.
On the other hand, I'm less thrilled with the idea of allowing the GM to trigger an Archivist's Logoi. The Archivist is the player's character in the traditional sense of PC, so I don't see the same need for the various mechanisms for splitting control -- e.g. a Free Will die roll/score, involuntary activation of "hidden" traits -- that we're considering to represent the Archivist's (and thus the player's) imperfect control over and knowledge of the Host.
2) Who gets Fade and Burn?
I like Tobias's idea that you don't have any namby-pamby buffer zone before the Host starts losing traits: When you choose to take Burn or Fade, it means either Host or Archivist starts losing points off traits immediately -- which pushes the central dilemma of the game (whom will I sacrifice?) right up front where it ought to be.
As for Archivists being able to take Burn, I know this adds an extra layer of complexity, but I think it's worth it, just as giving Archivists passions and humanity to burn is worth it: It allows you the dilemma of nurturing your residual humanity, even when it is interfering with the mission (the "Joe sure started drinking heavily" example), or sacrificing your residual humanity by Burning it in order to achieve the mission -- making you ever more alien both to what you were and to the people you're trying to help.
Quote from: TobiasI want the player to have authority over the symbiont and what happens. I expect the player to be responsible enough to adress premise on his own when the Host would resist the Archivist.
And I think we may have a significant disagreement here, actually; or alternatively I may just be misreading you. I agree that the player should be, most of the time, playing the role of both Archivist and Host -- the symbiont, as you say -- but I think that there should be actual game mechanics that reflect the fact that the Host is someone else with a will of his or her own. The in-game reality that the Archivist does not fully control, or fully know, the Host should be reflected by game mechanics which interfere with the
player's knowledge and control of the Host. As Nate said a while back, such mechanics (e.g. a die roll) can create the sense of a "third presence" at the table besides player and GM, which I think is important for the Host to rise above being a tool and become a character in their own right.
Yes, you could ask the player to "just roleplay it" and act out the Archivist vs. Host conflicts, but I think that's much harder than making the player's primary role the Archivist and then using mechanics to roil the waters and provide conflict.
EDIT: See the "Emotion Mechanics" thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11363)I started a while back in RPG theory for some discussion on players not being totally in control of their characters, which is germane and lays out my views on this in far more length than I'll bore you with at the moment.
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergI like the idea of the player not knowing all the Host's Passions until one of them is stirred up by circumstances; I'd think of this less as the GM invoking them tactically/adversarially than as the GM making a judgment call about what circumstances might reasonably trigger a given Passion.
I'm jumping in with a "me too" here.
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergThe Archivist is the player's character in the traditional sense of PC, so I don't see the same need for the various mechanisms for splitting control -- e.g. a Free Will die roll/score, involuntary activation of "hidden" traits -- that we're considering to represent the Archivist's (and thus the player's) imperfect control over and knowledge of the Host.
Again, right on.
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergI like Tobias's idea that you don't have any namby-pamby buffer zone before the Host starts losing traits: When you choose to take Burn or Fade, it means either Host or Archivist starts losing points off traits immediately -- which pushes the central dilemma of the game (whom will I sacrifice?) right up front where it ought to be.
Ack! No! Sydney, we were getting along so well, why'd you have to go and ruin it? Kidding, of course, but I really think a "namby-pamby buffer zone" is vital. If we don't have that, hosts will quickly become unuseable, no matter how circumspect the Archivists are. I'd like for them to be able to achieve their goals with only minimal damage to the host, if they really try and are subtle. By taking away traits any time the Archivist does something, it almost makes it pointless to try and protect the host -- you might as well burn them down to an empty shell and be effective, since they'll be ruined by contact with you anyway.
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergAs for Archivists being able to take Burn, I know this adds an extra layer of complexity, but I think it's worth it, just as giving Archivists passions and humanity to burn is worth it: It allows you the dilemma of nurturing your residual humanity, even when it is interfering with the mission (the "Joe sure started drinking heavily" example), or sacrificing your residual humanity by Burning it in order to achieve the mission -- making you ever more alien both to what you were and to the people you're trying to help.
How about we create some optional rules to allow for Burn to Archivists who have Passions and Fade to hosts who have Transcendence?
Quote from: Andrew MorrisQuote from: Sydney FreedbergI like Tobias's idea that you don't have any namby-pamby buffer zone before the Host starts losing traits: When you choose to take Burn or Fade, it means either Host or Archivist starts losing points off traits immediately -- which pushes the central dilemma of the game (whom will I sacrifice?) right up front where it ought to be.
....By taking away traits any time the Archivist does something, it almost makes it pointless to try and protect the host -- you might as well burn them down to an empty shell and be effective, since they'll be ruined by contact with you anyway.
Now I'm torn, actually. Here's a potential compromise which allows immediate pain yet lasting protection (what a slogan): All Burn/Fade takes effect immediately, but there is the potential for the Host/Archivist to recover -- a possibility which of course gets slimmer as the damage gets worse.
The upside of such a mechanic would be that instead of having a buffer zone
before the player's choices started to hurt characters, it would provide a recovery capacity
after -- so players could still try to protect Hosts from excessive Burn (and Archivists from excessive Fade) but would still face nasty consequences up-front. In this mechanic, "burn out" and "fade out" would be the Points of No Return, when recovery is no longer possible.
The downside is it's one more complication to implement -- note that it's the exact opposite of Tobias's suggestion of simplifying the system by only assessing Fade/Burn effects when an Archivist leaves the Host.
I love this idea. Sure it'll take a bit more time, but I think it's well worth it. It just fits the game perfectly. Sydney, this is better than a compromise, it's an improvement on both ideas.
Well, I'm more than fashionably late to this particular party. I've been away from home (and net access) quite a bit, and have also been spending a lot of time trying to revive a 2nd-hand laptop (but that is another story, and not for this thread.)
Here's my latest stab at some base mechanics for this game. Please note that I've been drafting this over the course of a few hours, so there will be some cross-posting!
1) Stats
I like Michael's "aspects" idea (and most of Sydney's "skills deriving from passions" argument) - I think that it also presents an oppprtunity to reduce some of the (now quite large) list of trait-types that we have been discussing.
For example, Loves Family(2), Security Guard(4) All Hosts must Ascend(3) and Molecular Agitation(5) could all be legitimate traits within the setting - as examples of Host Passions, Skills, Archivist "Passions" and Logoi, respectively.
The only distinction that needs to be made is that some of the traits are "transcendent" (eg Reads Minds) and are therefore Archivist-only (with the exception of a few special Hosts). These traits will have their own special rules (mainly relating to Burn.)
I don't see why Archivists cannot have traits which overlap with Hosts - both Archivists and Hosts could have access to Hopeless Romantic(3), Nuclear Physics(5) and I Know Kung Fu(4) for example.
I'm also going to suggest the we dispose of separate Humanity and Transcendence stats (not an original idea.) Very "human" characters have lots of Passions, "transcendent" characters have "transcendent traits". Humanity and Transcendence still remain as concepts, so I don't think this contradicts the "vote" we had before starrting this thread (but tell me if I'm wrong.)
However, Free Will remains a separate trait.
2) Conflict
In several RPGs I've seen, conflict is separated into two categories: character vs environment, and character vs. character. SW adds a third type of conflict: character vs. self, which represents Archivist-Host conflict, and also character' strugling against their Passions.
I think that character-self conflicts are different from the first two types, and that this is important to the mechanics. The first two types are about whether or not a character succeeds in an action, but character-self conflicts are about what actions the character will take (or attempt) in the first place.
This gives us our first rule: character-self conflicts must resolve first.
Character-self conflicts are triggered whenever a character's intended action would conflict with a trait's "expected behaviour."
For example, the Archivist player wants his character (who is possessing a Host) to shoot his Host's brother. This would trigger a conflict if the Host or Archivist had any traits such as "Loves family", "Honest", "(Good) Cop" (or even "Injury Lawyer) or "Respect for Humans".
A Host's Free Will should also be used to oppose the action if the action would not be in the Host's best interests - for example, the Archivist wants their Host to go to the library rather than go to work (the Host might get fired.) In other words, Free Will represents the "enlightened self-interest" of the Host.
If the proposed action is in the best interests of the Host (but is opposed by another trait), apply the Host's Free Will in favour of the action.
If it's not clear whether the action is in the Host's best interests or not (but is opposed by another trait) then randomly determine which side the Free Will is applied to (perhaps neither.)
Archivists also have a Will score with which to support their action - I think this is mechanically necessary, otherwise the Archivist will never be able to act (not sure I like it though.)
To resolve a "character-self" conflict: add up all the traits which support an action, and all the traits that oppose it. Highest score wins.
If the environment (or another character) resists the action, then use the "roll-over" from the character-self conflict (or just count relevant character traits, if there is no "character-self" conflict). Compare this to the "opposition" traits and highest total wins again.
(A random factor - or "fate point" system - could also be added here, but I'd like to leave this open for now. An environmental penalty for actions which change Important History would also be appropriate.)
3) Burn v1
Archivists have the option of Burning Host traits in order to influence the result of a character-self conflict. They can suppress any host trait, including Free Will. Burning Free Will makes a Host much more predictable (and controllable) but also less useful (a Host gets to use their Free Will to assist any "survival" situation.)
Burning Host traits is a serious act with moral consequences; the effects are permanent (or long-term) - in Host time. Of course, the HTT can change as a result of Archivist action (or naturally), so burn can heal from this perspective (but I'm going to skirt around this for now.)
(question: should this be reflected in the mechanics? I don't think this is necessary, but may be needed to prevent munchkinist players from Burning Hosts with impunity.)
4) Burn v2
"Transcendent" traits also cause Burn if they are applied, but this is a different type of Burn. Every time an archivist uses a "transcendent trait" in a conflict, roll D6 for each point used. Keep a record of the numbers rolled in a the Host's "burn log".
For example, Archivist rolls [1,3,3,4,6] for using a 5-point transcendent trait. Write these numbers in the burn log.
A Host's total "Burn" is equal to the highest number of times a songle number is repeated (in the example above, "2" for the two 3's).
Burn is cumulative:
Example, the Host above already has a "burn log" of [1,3,3,4,6]. The archivist trigers the same 5-point transcendent trait again, roling [1,1,1,5,6]. The "burn log" now reads [1,1,1,1,3,3,4,5,6,6] and the total "burn" is 4.
For every 2 full points of "Burn", the Host gains a -1 penalty to all actions (ie trait totals) for all conflicts except character-self conflicts. When Burn is equal to twice the highest Host Trait, the host is dead (or insane, or a zombie) and is only "in play" for as long as they are possessed.
(Note, this is a rather harsh ratio - feel free to change it if you want a larger "buffer zone")
The act of possessing a Host automatically inflicts a D6 roll to the burn log. For each full day of possession, add another D6 roll to the log.
(Again, this is a harsh ratio - it encourages minimal and careful Archivist interference with Hosts.)
Again, this type of Burn is permanent from with Host-time, but could heal with te passage of Archivist-time (ie from an "outside" perspective.)
5) Fade
Whenever an archivist loses a character-self conflict, they take Fade. This should be directly related to the margin of loss, but I'm not sure yet whether this should be point for point, or rolled for on a "Fade log".
Fade reduces all Archivist actions (trait totals), including character-self conflicts and any other conflicts that Archivist traits contribute to.
If an Archivist takes Fade equal to their highest Trait, they "fade out" and cannot leave their Host. (They lose their connection to the Archivist-Dimension, as discussed in the HTT thread.)
Archivsts can recover Fade after leaving a Host, but this also requires the passage of Archivist time.
(Note for healing Burn and Fade - this could br represented by rolling D6 and removing the appropriate number from the log. If there isn't an equivalent number, no healing this time around. This means that high Burn or Fade could take a long time to heal...)
6) More work needed
There isn't anything in the above to capture different types of Archivist-Host interaction (passive observation, "conversation" between archivist and Host etc.) I would also like a system for archivists and Host "learning" traits from each other - which could also account for Archivists "teaching" Hosts transcendent traits.
Please read, dissect and discuss - in the meantime, I'm going to spend more time studying the rest of this thread - although I have read it a couple of times, it's very "information rich" and I'm sure I haven't done it justice yet.
LATE NOTE: I think these mechanics will support Sydney's latest suggestion, with minimal tweaking.
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergQuote from: Andrew MorrisQuote from: Sydney FreedbergI like Tobias's idea that you don't have any namby-pamby buffer zone before the Host starts losing traits: When you choose to take Burn or Fade, it means either Host or Archivist starts losing points off traits immediately -- which pushes the central dilemma of the game (whom will I sacrifice?) right up front where it ought to be.
....By taking away traits any time the Archivist does something, it almost makes it pointless to try and protect the host -- you might as well burn them down to an empty shell and be effective, since they'll be ruined by contact with you anyway.
Note that, with slight adaptation, this is EXACTLY the temptation that could make you a Dark Archivist...
edit: note that I deliberately placed the coupling of skill-passion in my suggestions to have something 'valuable' be erased in that case as well...
Quote
Now I'm torn, actually. Here's a potential compromise which allows immediate pain yet lasting protection (what a slogan): All Burn/Fade takes effect immediately, but there is the potential for the Host/Archivist to recover -- a possibility which of course gets slimmer as the damage gets worse.
The upside of such a mechanic would be that instead of having a buffer zone before the player's choices started to hurt characters, it would provide a recovery capacity after -- so players could still try to protect Hosts from excessive Burn (and Archivists from excessive Fade) but would still face nasty consequences up-front. In this mechanic, "burn out" and "fade out" would be the Points of No Return, when recovery is no longer possible.
The downside is it's one more complication to implement -- note that it's the exact opposite of Tobias's suggestion of simplifying the system by only assessing Fade/Burn effects when an Archivist leaves the Host.
Actually, I was always in favor of 'damage up front' with a recovery option (how traditional, now that I state it this way). I'll let go of my desire to assess damage at the end (as a good streamlining simplification) in favor of the image of the white-haired stooped Host, though.
(Although I do think people need to pay close attention to the level of detail they build into their mechanics. There are three types of campaign I see being played - 2 fisted action with historical backdrop, time-twisters extraordinaire (the only campaign where subtle motor control and tiny hints are really interesting, I think), and the deep introspective dramatic Host-Archivist interaction (where there's a lot more 'bonding'). These three types of campaigns require different levels of rule detail).
On free will mechanics, GM-player and Host-Archivist relationship (primarily in response to Sydney's post):
I think there's less opposition than you might expect. What i am against is a GM-driven 'surprise' all the time - but you would expect that, as I am promoting the GM-less game. On issues where there needs to be some inter-player sparring and tension (without feedback, one player's just riffing in a vacuum - scary, freedom without feedback) a group decision mechanic might work a lot better.
I am NOT against a mechanical introduction of something Free Will-esque that will create tension in the Host-Archivist relationship. I just want the player to be in the driver's seat.
I know I have been against a Free Will score, but I am not against Free Will as a concept that manifests in some way.
I haven't gotten around to parsing Doug's Post well yet, since he's coming at it from a fresh angle. There's gems there. I also think there's a good example of 'some mechanics/detail' being right for some different focus in campaign there.
(This whole post IMHO, ofcourse).
Tobias, thanks for elaborating.
Doug, good to have you back, and good to have a new take on mechanics. I'm unsure about the die-rolling scheme, but the idea of implementing Burn slightly differently for erasing inconvenient Host traits vs. manifesting Transcendent powers is interesting. And there's one nail you've absolutely hammered on the head:
Quote from: Doug Ruff[External conflicts]are about whether or not a character succeeds in an action, but character-self conflicts are about what actions the character will take (or attempt) in the first place. This gives us our first rule: character-self conflicts must resolve first. Character-self conflicts are triggered whenever a character's intended action would conflict with a trait's "expected behaviour."
Agreed. My small refining thought: Whenever the player-as-Archivist wants the Host to do the stuff the Host would normally do, the player roleplays the Archivist-Host symbiote without restriction and without interfering mechanics, because there's no conflict. Whenever the player-as-Archivist wants the Host to do something "out of character"* -- which primarily means "in conflict with one of the Host's traits" -- the Free Will mechanic kicks in and there's a conflict to decide who decides.
* Note that the Host's "enlightened self-interest" isn't really the issue here; many people habitually do things against their enlightened self-interest (smoke, drink, go back to abusive relationships) and would take Burn from being forced to do the sensible thing!
As for the full might of Doug's mechanics outline, I'm still digesting, so I may have further thoughts....but I have go to buy my wife a Christmas present now!
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergTobias, thanks for elaborating.
You're welcome. ;)
Quote
Agreed. My small refining thought: Whenever the player-as-Archivist wants the Host to do the stuff the Host would normally do, the player roleplays the Archivist-Host symbiote without restriction and without interfering mechanics, because there's no conflict. Whenever the player-as-Archivist wants the Host to do something "out of character"* -- which primarily means "in conflict with one of the Host's traits" -- the Free Will mechanic kicks in and there's a conflict to decide who decides.
So tell me where a GM is needed, here. ;)
lol- I'm in the same boat with everyone else on Doug's post. Bravo, bravo.
Now then-
1) I'm siding with Tobias on the GM-less. I think that could work quite nicely.
2) I'm against Tobias on the Free Will. Actually, without a GM, a Free Will score is more neccesary. We're cutting out one human element with the GM-less, an element that (should) have sole interest in moving the world along. Thus, the Free Will takes the place of the GM, allowing the Host to do things for themselves. A GM is normally the NPC voice, and a Host really isn't a PC, more like an NPC you get to borrow. So, taking the GM away, the NPC still needs a voice not belonging to a player.
3) That said, I skimmed Doug's post and am wondering about an Archivist will score. Is that neccesary? The Archivist CAN dump his or her power into a Host, driving down or killing Free Will in most of the examples that have included it.
Its not a question of IF the Archivist can do it, its a question of HOW the Archivist can do it. The Archivist always has the power to, in the end, boss the Host around, but at the cost of damaging the Host, slipping to the "Dark Side" or what not. To quote Genie - "Its not a pretty sight, I DON'T LIKE DOING IT!"
4) Agreeing with Syd, bravo on the conflict brake down Doug. Syd: Consider this- we've stated Burn in Hosts is psychological as well as physical. Of course those situations are bad for people, but for many in those situations thats "normal". They WOULD experiance psychological issues if they were forced out of those situations. "Drama queens", while their life is "so horrible", couldn't function without that drama in their life. If its not there, they'll try to find it in someone elses. If they can't, they're lost.
5) Regardless of how we do Burn, a "healing" mechanic is almost a must. I had something typed up last night before my PC crashed :P
What I was going to suggest was to tie the action of Healing to the Passion. For example, someone with "Loves Family" may need to have some kind of contact with his or her family, to "reaffirm" themselves or rekindle that Passion. Limit it, so that they can't just go home, say "Hi!" to the Wife and Kids and be just fine, but make it an option.
Quote from: daMoose_Neo
2) I'm against Tobias on the Free Will. Actually, without a GM, a Free Will score is more neccesary. We're cutting out one human element with the GM-less, an element that (should) have sole interest in moving the world along. Thus, the Free Will takes the place of the GM, allowing the Host to do things for themselves. A GM is normally the NPC voice, and a Host really isn't a PC, more like an NPC you get to borrow. So, taking the GM away, the NPC still needs a voice not belonging to a player.
Note, and I may stating this too much: I don't want a Free Will *score*(because it reeks to me of Willpower, and I think Free will is more... dare I say it... Transcendental and Universal than that. ;) ). But I don't mind a Free Will effect. Have a d10 oppose the Archivist/Allow the Host to do stuff, instead of a score. (Or any other die combo that's appropriate).
Quote
3) That said, I skimmed Doug's post and am wondering about an Archivist will score. Is that neccesary? The Archivist CAN dump his or her power into a Host, driving down or killing Free Will in most of the examples that have included it.
Its not a question of IF the Archivist can do it, its a question of HOW the Archivist can do it. The Archivist always has the power to, in the end, boss the Host around, but at the cost of damaging the Host, slipping to the "Dark Side" or what not. To quote Genie - "Its not a pretty sight, I DON'T LIKE DOING IT!"
Yes. IMHO.
Quote
5) Regardless of how we do Burn, a "healing" mechanic is almost a must. I had something typed up last night before my PC crashed :P
What I was going to suggest was to tie the action of Healing to the Passion. For example, someone with "Loves Family" may need to have some kind of contact with his or her family, to "reaffirm" themselves or rekindle that Passion. Limit it, so that they can't just go home, say "Hi!" to the Wife and Kids and be just fine, but make it an option.
Sounds good!
It's weekend, in the timeslot I'm in. Have fun with the thread while I'm gone! ;)
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergDoug, good to have you back, and good to have a new take on mechanics.
It's good to be back - and thanks to everyone for reviewing it so quickly.
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergMy small refining thought: Whenever the player-as-Archivist wants the Host to do the stuff the Host would normally do, the player roleplays the Archivist-Host symbiote without restriction and without interfering mechanics, because there's no conflict. Whenever the player-as-Archivist wants the Host to do something "out of character"* -- which primarily means "in conflict with one of the Host's traits" -- the Free Will mechanic kicks in and there's a conflict to decide who decides.
* Note that the Host's "enlightened self-interest" isn't really the issue here; many people habitually do things against their enlightened self-interest (smoke, drink, go back to abusive relationships) and would take Burn from being forced to do the sensible thing!
Actually, that's what I want too - which means you've pointed out a weakness in the current mechanic. There are going to be times when "Normal" behaviour for a Host is going to be against their "enlightened self-interest".
In a Sim game, we could model this by explaining how there are other Traits which counteract their self-interest: I smoke, but it's addictive; I drink, but it numbs the pain; he hits me, but I love him etc.
But that's going to get very complicated, very quickly - and this is a game about Archivists, not psychoanalysts. I think there's an answer, but I need to address the Will/Resistance issue first:
Tobias has a good point here: the effect is more important than the mechanic. If we want to support GM-less play, I think that the Host's resistance to Archivist control needs to be:
- Based on the Host's "interests" (which combines "survival" and "what they want", the latter can include things that are bad for them.
- Unpredictable (which implies a randomising element
- Discovered during play[/list:u]The last one hasn't really been discussed in any detail yet. But if there is no GM, how about a mechanic that allows players to introduce new Host Traits that oppose the Archivist? Or that support the Archivist?
For example, Bob the store clerk starts with McJob(2) and Welded to His iPod(3). An Archivist wants him to stand up to a bunch of armed robbers who want the day's taking. Can the Archivist spend a resourse to give Bob Survivalist(3) and Tae Kwon Do(4)? and can another player spend points to give Bob opposing traits of Hates the Boss(2) and Pisses His Pants at the First Sign of Danger(5)?
The main advantages of this approach are that initial chargen for Hosts can be fast and loose, and it starts to bring the game away from a dice-rolling exercise. It also may give another way to get the Host to do what you want, without Burning.
Main downside is that it's too damn convenient!
Even then, I think that there needs to be a generic "Will" or "Resistance" stat (or effect) that deals with anything that would inconvenience the Host, endanger them or upset their routine (most people like routines.) Perhaps dice-based, with more dice for greater inconvenience/danger to the Host?
Also that there needs to be some semi-reliable means of geting the Host to do something without Burning them. I think that the Archivist could use their own Traits to produce "internal voices" in the Host's mind, to influence them, but this would have to carefully balanced against the Host's own traits.
This appears a bit "crunchy" right now, but I think it can be stripped down. Also remember that, at this stage, most of the conflict resolution mechanics would fit onto a couple of pages of text-with-layout... I don't think that's bad. The main issue is handling time/simplicity, not length of rules.
Actually, Tobias, hows about we rip on my Dungeons/Dummies game?
D/D is a GM-less comedy game I wrote up which uses the players to toss in details about other players. Institute something like this here:
The player picks a Host to possess with a primary Passion that makes them ideal for what needs to be done. Then, the other players write down one other Passion (or two, if its a small group or we want Passionate Hosts). They HAVE to have a justification for it of course, they can't choose a Passion simply to hose the Archivist-Player, but when it comes up in play, it is revealed (or possibly even allow the other players to hint at the hidden passions, allow every one a chance to frame a scene or throw in a detail that hints at it.)
In D/D, the groups that have played it have worked well in. Chargen portions where these other players choose moved quick and the selections complimented the characters and enhanced them rather than create a messy situation.
Yeah, I like that, that's what I'm aiming for as well (in general, at least, although the details look good here as well).
I've been doing some Universalis gaming, and after the initial sillyness phase, people get deep and responsible very quickly - and most importantly, it's about story-enhancing play.
Ok. I had a bunch of thoughts on this game yesterday evening, and they kept me awake. I wrote them all down, but i don't know if I have time to mark them all down here (at work, etc.) - and they haven't digested well, yet, but I want to share them, to some degree, at least, while they're still fresh.
All this is IMHO (this will keep me from having to type it every other sentence).
My trouble with the possesion mechanics and Free Will, which I wanted to give a place, was that I couldn't relate the 'why' of possession to a larger goal, in-game. I didn't know the ramification(s) of why the stat/mechanic would affect player action, so Free Will was meaningless from a play-for-a-goal viewpoint - it was just a bit of mechanics to capture a certain style of play at a certain detail level.
So I approached the problem from the other end, and asked myself why are these Archivists possession people anyway? Well, there's a nice explanation about the time-line being under some threat, and the archivists performing certain actions to unlock certain windows to key events that shaped the future.
So I basically thought: "I have to know about how certain actions will shape the future. I need some knowledge about how a group will resolve what it means when you shatter cyberdine chip X, or when you kill important ancestor #5."
And I got stuck, due to two reasons. One is that space-time causality was just too big of a thing to tackle realistically (or, as realistically as I need to still have some flavor of correctness, for the suspension of disbelief). The second was that I started seeing that whatever implementation I arrived at, it would either be some sort of 'group decision' thing, or it would become a real tough duty for the GM with lots of complex rules, or it would just throw all those rules out the window and time-travel would just become an excuse for cool backdrops. (None of these are a priori wrong - they're just not the design goals the group has in mind).
So I thought - well, what if I throw some basic assumptions that are hindering me out of the window? Shoot some sacred cows?
The sacred cow that lined itself right up between the cross-hairs was the one called "History is a bunch statistical processes. People (say, Hitler, to take the very common example) don't matter on a global/timescale - WWII would've happened anyway."
Why did this cow need to be shot? Because it's the cow that stood in the way of the primary player action (possess people and do stuff with them) and having meaning from that action.
So I turned it around. It hurt a bit to toss out certain 'realistic' assumptions I had floating around, but I made it: "History is all about certain people."
(Another way to think of it: what would be more effective: destroying 1 chip, or actually changing the person working on it, getting him to spend his entire life in a different direction?)
Now, I had to see if that though would/could embed itself in the framework of thoughts that were already present. I think it did.
Namely: History, and human nature/essence are described as some kind of multi-dimensional field, with 2 perpendicular time axes. (Akashic field, 0-energy field, God, you give it a name). Every human (sentient being) influences the life of lots of other humans - but on different scales. I may personally make a significant difference to the lives of about a 100 people over my lifetime, but there's no arguing that Jezus, Buddha, Mohammed, Hitler, Stalin, etc. made a much larger impact, over a much longer period of time. In other words, they made a big impact on the field of energy that permeates reality and history. They have Impact. Think of it as something not easily changed, deflected from it's nature, because the Impact had been growing to that climactic point for times on end, and the effect reverberated for time after that.
From this thought, a number of practical limitations and issues arose, for which I have a bunch of mechanics, but I am not going to post them all yet, for 2 reasons.
1. They're not fleshed out and well-written enough yet (I wonder if I can even read my tortured handwriting)
2. I want you all to mull over the thought and wrap your minds around the issues, if you would. If I present fully-fleshed mechanics, you may not see the need or desirability for certain scores/effects/mechanics, or your own creative process may be hindered by me already imprinting all my mechanics on you.
What I will share are the following basic thoughts/rules:
1. Every human has an Impact, based on the reasoning above. This impact is on a log10 scale. I have certain basic rules about lifecycles, passions, etc., that basically means that an average person will have an importance score of 2-3 (affected 100-1000 people significantly for 1 lifecycle in life and after death) to 10 (affected 10.000.000.000 people significantly for 1 lifecycle in life and post death). (if 10 is too low a number according to whatever calculations, I am flexible with the scale going higher).
2. High-impact people are hard to change, hard to affect - because their impact has been coming, and has been felt, by so much of the field already. It's not impossible, though. This makes high-impact score like the 'barrier' to key moments in history we've been referring to.
2a. After some thought, the typical Archivist, in my mind, has an impact score of 4-5 at the start. He can, in some cases, lend this Impact to his host to make him more effective. Low-Impact people have a penalty on their skill "test" (whatever resolution system we use) against High-impact people.
3. High-impact people tend to be surrounded (not just physically, but also in time) by one step lower impact people, etc., so on and so forth until we're at "average Joe's".
4. This impact needs to be tied to Passions (possible Transcendent Passions aka Otherworldly Knowledges, but I digress) to make a direct connection to player actions.
5. In practise, this means a limited number of 'pre-defined' worldtimeshaping Passions are needed, otherwise they will be overabundant and nothing will be 'special'. This is a wonderful opportunity for players to state what the game will be about - each player gets to add 1 Passion that the game will be based on (a basic 'scale' of reality).
5a. All humans/players have a 'primary' passion.
5b. This means that the pinnacle of Impact of a Passion (something I call the Monolith as working name) should also be known, or given by the players that suggest the Passions the game is based on). There's some flexibility in this - some things could be group play and commonly known, but you may also have a GM that could hide which persons are actually the Monoliths. They're likely to be well-known, though. :) )
6. Importance may or may not be reliably measurable by Archivists.
7. The change in the HTT at any time may be measured by it's deviation from the starting point. If you've changed the ways of (method yet unspecified), or killed, 5 humans with Importance of 5 with as driving Passion Dominance, this means Dominance took a hit of 5*100.000 = 500.000 points (and some other passion may have gained as many points, depending on whether ways were changed or people just killed).
8. A difference between Dark and Light may be the method of change. Dark may involve just killing off / Burning away the passions of legions of low-Impact people, Light may involve trying to 'solve' your way up the Impact-foodchain and subtly and patiently overcoming the resistance of high impact, to make a big conversion.
9. All these numbers may still need tweaking.
10. Passions stick together. Organisations and families are filled with the same driving passion (if you don't like this rule qua flavor, see the difficulties you get with vulnerabilities of key people).
11. None of this bites the current possesion rules, I think - I just haven't "solved" free will yet, but added a different stat - Impact.
Ok, I'm done, I'm behind with work and the deadline approaches fast. I may not see you all for a while (days), or I might be present, cannot tell at this point.
This may also be my last post for a few days - Christmas will be internet-less and I need to pack my bags (and wrap some more presents) for the journey.
Tobias, I got quite a lot out of reading your post, but probably not in the way you intended! I don't agree with all of your conclusions (more on that later) but this part of your post stood out for me:
Quote from: TobiasAnd I got stuck, due to two reasons. One is that space-time causality was just too big of a thing to tackle realistically (or, as realistically as I need to still have some flavor of correctness, for the suspension of disbelief). The second was that I started seeing that whatever implementation I arrived at, it would either be some sort of 'group decision' thing, or it would become a real tough duty for the GM with lots of complex rules, or it would just throw all those rules out the window and time-travel would just become an excuse for cool backdrops. (None of these are a priori wrong - they're just not the design goals the group has in mind).
I think you've nailed a key, if not
the key problem with the mechanics so far. This game is about Possession, but it's also about Changing History, and the History bit is (IMHO) the more challenging part of the game.
I think that, as a result of this, we've tackled Possession in more detail (as we are more comfortable about it.) This may be a mistake.
How to implement History (including "causality") within the game is likely to have the largest mpact in the game,
as it will place the strongest restrictions on what players can do with the SIS.
For that reason, I think that Tobias' implementation question above is really quite important, and something I intend to think when I'm getting over my Christmas indigestion. I would ask everyone with an interest in this to do the same (the thinking, -not- the indigestion.)
However, I don't agree with the shift from events to people. The idea of working your way through a list of people to achieve something is quite cool - however, the achievement (I think) is as a result of what the people do, not who they are.
This disagreement is partly stylistic (I like the idea of a "non-entity" who would have low Impact on Tobias' scale) being inspired (or used) to do remarkable things. However, it's also based on mechanical concerns (the man who shot JFK - or better, the people who killed Anwar Sadat - could be argued to have a large impact. Did they have the same Impact 10 years before they killed anyone?
I think that Tobias' model works well with great people - I think that it is less good for people who perform great (or infamous) deeds.
However, I am going to think about (not now) about what Tobias' scheme would look like if Impact of people was replaced with Impact of events. There are lots of other ideas in there which could be useful.
So, Merry Christmas, all - and please think about how History and causality fit within the mechanics (including Tobias'), not just within conflict resolution, but also in terms of defining long-term goals for the players and measuring their progress (or lack of it) against them.
Tobias, Doug:
Couldn't you have both?
I think both Events and People could have an Impact rating, and I think you could do it so that, if things work out for our Archivist, the IR from a Person could add or subtract (depending) from an Event (and vice versa, if we include natural Events that might be manipulated via Logoi which could enhance/interfere with the Impact of a Person.)
Granted, it might involve a formula more complex than straightforward add/subtract. After all, altering history shouldn't be as simple as "add/subtract N to/from X to get Y." Granted also, we might want to adjust it so that a low-Impact schlub might have a more effective Impact under the control of an Archivist, either through direct control (causing Burn), or through manipulating said nebbish through his personal Passions (possibly causing Fade.) Are these bad things? Also, how will we settle who gets to narrate the results?
I'm slightly inclined to agree with Spooky.
Tobias, your Standard Deviation method could actually be used to rate events retroactivly concerning our own history, or proactively concerning fictional history.
We also have to be careful how we lump events. WW2 was a HUGE "event", but it consisted of so many smaller events that make up its entirety: notables include Pearl Harbor (several hours), the Holocaust (YEARS!), individual battles (Days/weeks/months), etc.
Doug, Spooky, Nate - thanks for the perusal.
Doug - especial thanks for both backing me and disagreeing - I like that! Good luck with the (in)digesting of things edible and incredible. :)
Spooky - sure, events and people would be nice. I feel quite comfortable with keeping it about people myself for now (I think, I haven't tested a hypothetical actual play yet), but including events does seem cool, at least - the bomb NOT dropping on Hiroshima but on Berlin is cool, for instance.
Nate - Could you elaborate on how you'd use "my" SD method?
And a wonderful Christmas for everyone inclined to celebrate it. :)
Quote from: Doug Ruff
This disagreement is partly stylistic (I like the idea of a "non-entity" who would have low Impact on Tobias' scale) being inspired (or used) to do remarkable things. However, it's also based on mechanical concerns (the man who shot JFK - or better, the people who killed Anwar Sadat - could be argued to have a large impact. Did they have the same Impact 10 years before they killed anyone?
I think that Tobias' model works well with great people - I think that it is less good for people who perform great (or infamous) deeds.
My knee-jerk reaction is: "Yes. Importantce is based on their whole influence in being created, during and aftershock effects." (This leaves me open to a pointed follow-up question on slandering them when they're dead, for instance, something I'll have to think about). Note that I also extend their Impact level (and the mechanical protection it gives) to several (about 3-5) generations of their ancestors (at which point I am willing to claim killing an ancestor doesn't matter - the person was 'fated to be' anyway, so someone else will step in to help person X being born. Since their gene-contribution will be very low at this point, I overlook the effect as dismissable. Poor modeling of genetics, maybe, but neccesary for the game, imho.
As to the great Deeds: Deeds are nothing but an expression of a person. Yes, I am aware of the lack of 'cool deeds' from this approach, and I too find it a shame. Gotta find a way to make deeds related, somehow - maybe. Maybe you don't have to perform the Deed yourself, as Archivist, though - maybe you just have to change your puppet's programming, and he'll Do The Deed himself.
Well, I think basing all of the importance of an event on one person is too hefty. Hitler didn't personally execute all of the detainees in the concentration camps, Hitler didn't draw up every battle plan or plan within his German empire.
You could just as easily diffuse Hitler's World War 2 by killing Hitler's propoganda minister, thereby limiting his effectiveness and letting everyone think he's a raving lunatic.
At the least, with our own history, for this to work, you'd have to account, roughly, for the number of participants in a given, singular event. WW2 is not a singular event, it is a series of events. Sacred Cow it might be, but altering individuals totally, IMO, destroys the intricacies of the whole "Change the past, save the future" concept- if we went back in time and killed every despot and dictator, it wouldn't make life better.
But, back to actually using the deviation idea- try to, roughly, calculate the score for a given event. If I recall my stats class right, falling within the first instance of the standard deviation means that it accounts for a fair chunk, 2 accounts for almost everything, and 3 is like 99.99% or what not.
So, make your changes, see how that falls into place. If, even with your changes, it falls within the first rung of that deviation, the event, as recorded, takes place, your Impact, even with these people, was too small. Make it fall within the second instance and the event changes, maybe opposite of the original (Instead of the US winning, the Spanish won a specific skirmish in the Spanish/American war), make it fall within the third rung and it doesn't happen at all.
Thus, folks of vary importance will still hold fair sway, but changing one person won't change the destiny of time.
Drawbacks- LOTS of math. Imagine having to come up with Impact ratings for all of Hitlers staff, at the first coup attempts, during his climb up the political ladder, and then finally as Chancelor of Germany.
Hard thing is, History is such that specific changes can alter huge outcomes, but they're not easy to find the exact ones.
Quote from: daMoose_NeoWell, I think basing all of the importance of an event on one person is too hefty. Hitler didn't personally execute all of the detainees in the concentration camps, Hitler didn't draw up every battle plan or plan within his German empire.
No, he didn't. But I've let go of the demand that modeling Hitler (for instance) needs to be 'realistic' in this fashion in this game.
[/quote]
You could just as easily diffuse Hitler's World War 2 by killing Hitler's propoganda minister, thereby limiting his effectiveness and letting everyone think he's a raving lunatic. [/quote]
Well, you CAN do this in my system. Hitler's propaganda minister is probably only 1 or 2 steps down the ladder in terms of significance. So, if Hitler is a 10, mr. Minister is an 8. Killing him will reduce the Hitler Passion Faction by 10^8 = 100 million points.
Quote
At the least, with our own history, for this to work, you'd have to account, roughly, for the number of participants in a given, singular event. WW2 is not a singular event, it is a series of events. Sacred Cow it might be, but altering individuals totally, IMO, destroys the intricacies of the whole "Change the past, save the future" concept- if we went back in time and killed every despot and dictator, it wouldn't make life better.
"With our own history." Again.
The other option is, indeed, as you sketch, the need to madel the number of participants in events, and the series of events.
And, in my example, if you go back in time, and kill everyone (actually, it'd be preferrable to change them), you DO make a better life.
Quote
But, back to actually using the deviation idea- try to, roughly, calculate the score for a given event. If I recall my stats class right, falling within the first instance of the standard deviation means that it accounts for a fair chunk, 2 accounts for almost everything, and 3 is like 99.99% or what not.
So, make your changes, see how that falls into place. If, even with your changes, it falls within the first rung of that deviation, the event, as recorded, takes place, your Impact, even with these people, was too small. Make it fall within the second instance and the event changes, maybe opposite of the original (Instead of the US winning, the Spanish won a specific skirmish in the Spanish/American war), make it fall within the third rung and it doesn't happen at all.
Standard deviation from what? For there to be some norm to reference, are we going to model the whole of history as a chain of events with Impact?
I don't think you're actually suggesting, that, though. :)
Quote
Thus, folks of vary importance will still hold fair sway, but changing one person won't change the destiny of time.
Drawbacks- LOTS of math. Imagine having to come up with Impact ratings for all of Hitlers staff, at the first coup attempts, during his climb up the political ladder, and then finally as Chancelor of Germany.
Hard thing is, History is such that specific changes can alter huge outcomes, but they're not easy to find the exact ones.
Well, that last sentence could be the reason all those Archivists are digging and compiling all this information - to find that exact Event that makes the person of Impact X so important.
And I think there are plenty of interesting stories possible without having to go all the way to the top of the Impact scale... but it would make for a natural 'powergrowth' scale for the Archivist, if the players want it.
A few, semi-coherent thoughts:
Possession and changing history, the core activities of this game, have something important in common: both involve making people do something they wouldn't otherwise have done. Hence the premise, as I understand it: when, and why, is it right to force people to the action you think right? But that commonality should be reflected in the mechanics; changing history should appear similar to possession. I think it was Sydney Freeberg who suggested a "narrative style" for history changing, in which the players figured out how a completed mission would affect the themes of human history, then wrote a new history on that basis.
I think I see a way to do this. Adolf Hitler's impact on the 20th century AD is profound; but the reason Hitler had that heavy impact was that he made himself into the focus for Germany's ambitions, which were thwarted in World War I. Well, thwarted ambition is a Passion, one that many millions in Germany shared. Why not write up whole societies as "characters", with Passions that trigger in response to historical events? And then one might define missions for a group of Archivists in terms of creating an event which will activate a specific arrangement of Passions in a society, thus bringing about significant changes there. Or, at one level back, the Archivists could work to seed some Passion into a society, so that at some later event it will activate and change its outcome completely.
Naturally an Archivist can't possess a society, so we would need a mechanic to express how an individual possession can affect the Passions of larger groups the Host belongs to and influences. And that mechanic has to account for Passion losses due to Burn ... a burnt-out Host has less energy, communicates less of his Passions to other people. (Dark Archivists don't just wreck their Hosts, they're sapping the life out of history itself!)
The Passions then become the "themes of history", as well as (indeed, because they are) the fundamental drives of humanity. (And a truly ambitious Archivist might try to impart a Logos into human history.)
Quote from: Michael BrazierNaturally an Archivist can't possess a society, Quote
Ooooohhhh, but wouldn't it be cool if he could! ;)
Quote from: TobiasWell, that last sentence could be the reason all those Archivists are digging and compiling all this information - to find that exact Event that makes the person of Impact X so important.
Which could also mean killing Hitler wouldn't change the fact that WW2 errupted. It would change HOW it errupted, may bypass the Holocaust, but WW2 would still occur. Especially considering how Michael described it- thats an excellent way of looking at the situation and his rise to power.
Forgive me, I am in favor of simplifying things, but I don't want to call temporal mechanics a sacred cow- History is way too precise in its balance. Addressing it, as stands, I think we need to do something to include the complexity of historical events (fictional or non).
IMO, changing the focus from events to people gives us more of a cinimatic air to it. Go back in time, kill this one person, all changes. I'd rather see how CHANGING one person affects outcomes, or changing several people on small scales affects things.
OR
Suggestion- two ways to play?
Event Focus - more micromanagement of people and events
Person Focus - more overt actions, dealing with singular people
(Back on a proper connection after a week with a crappy dial-up AOL account at my grandmother's....)
Quote from: Tobias"History is all about certain people."
Bravo. And as a trained historian (master's degree only, no Ph.d admittedly) and a journalist, I can actually justify this in real-world terms (i.e. Sim), not just game- or story-necessity (Gam/Nar). But Michael's already hit the crucial point:
Quote from: Michael Brazierthe reason Hitler had that heavy impact was that he made himself into the focus for Germany's ambitions, which were thwarted in World War I. Well, thwarted ambition is a Passion, one that many millions in Germany shared. Why not write up whole societies as "characters"....
Standing ovation.
There's actually a book I read -- Eberhard Jackel's
Hitler's World View I believe, or maybe the semi-translated
Hitler's Weltanschauing (sp? my German is nonexistent) -- which finally got me to understand the role of individuals in history. There are two extremes: "Great Men (rarely women) make history, but are themselves unaffected by it" and "no individual matters, if Hitler/Churchill/George W. Bush/Ghandi/whoever hadn't done X, historical forces would have inevitably caused some else to do X." Both are wrong. What all my study leads me to believe is that an individual can have a profound effect if that individual "resonates" with the historical trends (for the examples above, German militarism turned near-psychotic after World War I, British doggedness, American idealism and blind terror after 9/11, Indian nationalism reacting vs. British Imperialism): The Great Leader is not merely a figurehead for a historical force, but someone who can tap into it and magnify it or change its direction -- e.g. a Germany without Hitler would likely have caused a World War II, but not necessarily a Holocaust; an India without a Ghandi would likely have its independence, but not necessarily peacefully; etc.
So the point of the game (to return to Tobias's point) is to influence these key people -- the "resonators" -- either directly by Possessing them, or (perhaps more interesting) indirectly by Possessing the people who influence them. (I've heard of at least one play and one movie about Jews trying to befriend a young Hitler).
Mechanically, what does this require? As Michael said, it probably means we need to stat up civilizations. Whether a civilization's Passions are a baseline set of traits shared by the typical members of that civilization, or a thing unto themselves, is a crucial question I'm not sure of.
Also, I'm intrigued by Tobias's idea of some kind of mechanical Impact rating to embody, mechanically, how important a person is, and thus both how hard their fate is to change and how many "victory points" you can get from changing it. Now, trying to compute a logarithmic scale of how many people someone's actions affected is the path to Simulationist madness, but a roughly logarithmic scale is probably necessary: i.e. don't worry about exact numbers, but an Impact 5 person is about ten times as potent as a 4, etc.
Now, this "History is People" concept works nicely with the Chen in his tea-shop (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12823&highlight=groupdesign) concept from back in the Time Travel party (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12823&highlight=groupdesign) thread. The key idea was that the changes in the timestream should be reflected as changes in the fate of certain individuals, people who would remain recognizably themselves no matter how history changed around them, but whose circumstances would change. Thus instead of the player-character wiping out everyone they cared about every time they tread on a butterfly in the Mesozoic Era, they would see the results of their actions in tangible changes affecting people they cared about.
Now, my limited understanding of chaos theory -- based on watching TV documentaries and dating a series of science & math types prior to my wife (a poet) -- is that chaos theory actually allows this kind of thing. As I recall, there's something called a "strange attractor": While the rest of a pattern/system may fluctuate chaotically, certain islands of order seem to recur in the same place/time over and over again.
Thus let's say that both Chen in his teashop, and young Hitler the frustrated painter, are "strange attractors." This means two big things in-game:
(1) You can't prevent them being born: Even if you kill all the ancestors you can find, the same person ends up being born from a completely different family tree. This prevents the game being one of "hunt the ancestor" (or, more gently, "get the ancestors to marry someone else").
(2) They somehow "resonate" with the fundamental historical forces -- societal Passions -- at play in their era. (As per my take on Michael's idea). Thus they embody and influence, or at least reflect, the wider historical issues, and can be used tactically (gamist) and dramatically (narrativist) to attempt to shape those issues and then see how successful your shaping is.
To follow-up and clarify (and to get back onto the topic of mechanics, having broken the rules I myself set for this forum by going off into historical theorizing):
How does the "resonance" of a key individual/Strange Attractor work, in game terms? As a first stab, I'd say it works because they can alter other people's Passions.
Probably this requires that the audience have the Passion already at a low level, or that the society as a whole have that Passion (these two propositions are the same thing if the societal-level character Traits are seen as a template for a generic member of that society: e.g. the average West European ca. 1200 AD has "Revere the Saints:1," "Fairy Lore:2," and "Backbreaking farm labor:5").
So, to continue Michael's example, let's say you have your Average German ca. 1933 has the Passions "Resentful nationalism:3" and "Dislikes Jews:1." Then Hitler comes along with "Resentful nationalism:8" and "Dislikes Jews: 8," gives a fiery oration, and pumps Average German Guy up to 5 and 4, respectively.
How to reflect this mechanically? I'm not quite sure; perhaps the standard task-resolution system could simply include "give someone a new Passion, at least temporarily" as a potential task: Your base chance of success is determined by your own Passion in that area plus any "charismatic" or "great leader" abilities; if the target already has the Passion in question, that counts as a bonus; if the target has a countervailing Passion, that counts as a penalty; and the degree of success indicates the amount you increase the target's Passion by.
The most important point here, though, is that Great Leaders/Strange Attractors start to look a little like Archivists -- they change the Passions and other character traits of those they come in contact with. One way of implementing this would be to give Strange Attractors some degree of Transcendence (i.e. Logoi/Uncanny Knowlegdz/whatever) {EDIT: e.g. Hitler might have the Logos "Seize the Moment in History" or Ghandi the Logos "Contagiously Non-Violent"}; but I'm unsure of this. I think the more fundamental question is coming up with robust mechanics for characters changing each other's traits, of which the Possession mechanics might end up being simply a (very well-developed) special case.
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergThe most important point here, though, is that Great Leaders/Strange Attractors start to look a little like Archivists -- they change the Passions and other character traits of those they come in contact with. One way of implementing this would be to give Strange Attractors some degree of Transcendence (i.e. Logoi/Uncanny Knowlegdz/whatever) {EDIT: e.g. Hitler might have the Logos "Seize the Moment in History" or Ghandi the Logos "Contagiously Non-Violent"}; but I'm unsure of this. I think the more fundamental question is coming up with robust mechanics for characters changing each other's traits, of which the Possession mechanics might end up being simply a (very well-developed) special case.
"Resonators" -- people who invoke societal Passions and therefore can influence them -- are obviously a core concept here; kudos to you for that, Sydney. Though events can resonate also: there are events which have great historical importance even when none of the people involved do, because the story of the event happens to exemplify a social conflict. In the system, societal Passions activate as news of the resonant event gets around, and people start to act differently.
And we do, it appears, need mechanics for characters changing each other's traits -- and they need to scale, too, from individuals through groups to whole societies. Using Transcendence for that, though, doesn't feel right ... what we're trying to simulate here is one set of people trying to persuade another, by the arts of rhetoric and dialectic. Does it make sense to ascribe the working of ordinary human politics to the Truth beyond space and time?
Sydney,
Two elegant posts (I love the way you always manage to bring high-flyers into the fold of an actual game being designed). Count me in favor of your wording on 'resonators' or 'keys'.
I also like the elegance of the parallel between Archivist possession and leader/society influences/bonuses on individuals.
As to the logarithmic scale: it works. I've done some rough calculations and wet-finger work, and 1-10 or 1-12 can capture a BIIIG range.
(I also like the fact that persons who affect history for a long period, but for a small(er) group, can have the same Impact as 'modern' persons: the Time component vs. the modern Scale (atomic bomb, mass media) component).
Michael:
As to Events - true, there are some that resonate as well (Battle of Britain, Armstrong on the moon). It would be nice to capture them. Would you agree, though, that given the premise of the game and the primacy of the possession mechanic, people come first? (If you say yes to this, I won't hold a gun to your head later, promise).
As to Transcendence being the measure of power of changing a society - it could be a supporting factor. Like Scale (bomb, media) and Time are supporting factors to Impact, Transcendence may be a more skillfull, low-level manipulation of the factors human crudely affect every day, through rhetoric and dialectic but also through other means.
It turns out that lying in my own bed, alone, is good for the game-creative process. Who'd'a thunk? ;)
Just a thought, this time, though. But one that will inspire some mechanics from me later on.
I just realised that the Passions can also be the prime reasons time-disparate Archivists can effectively communicate/co-operate with each other. I personally would be spectacularly ineffective as a Native American Indian, Viking Raider, or Pharao. (There would be some comedy in it, though, as I apply my mishmash of literature and popular movie knowledge). I presume those people would also be rather ineffective if they had to be me.
But if you assume that it's the Passion you're invoking in a person to get him to do something, then it's ok if you don't understand the actual skills involved, even if your Host is doing some actions that are really bizarre to you, the Archivist.
(This is assuming primary human passions haven't changed much over the last couple of thousand years - which seems likely enough, given evolution and pyramid of Maslow, etc.).
Oh, and happy new year to those folks who are still around during this slow time of year (I'd wish it to the others as well, but those wishes'd arrive late, wouldn't they?)
Tobias: I'd say that resonant people are those who know what actions of theirs will invoke the societal Passions to which they resonate; that is, they can create resonant events, largely at will. In that sense I think the events come first -- one recognizes resonant people by the resonant events they're involved with. Also, the easiest way to describe what the Archivists do when they meddle in history is, that they are trying to create or alter resonant events (which, by the way, is another point of similarity between them and resonant people!)
... how's this for an idea? Some events trigger Passions all on one side, and every Passion that gets triggered grows stronger in later events. Other events trigger Passions in conflict, so at least one Passion has to be thwarted, and when that happens the thwarted Passion grows weaker in later events. (Continuing with the example of Hitler: Germany's loss in WWI weakened the national ambition somewhat, but the fascists' rhetoric inflamed it again; WWI was a conflict of Passions, Hitler's speeches and writings were uncontested.)
Michael - fair enough.
Would you want to write up some event-resonance driven mechanics, then? I'll keep plugging on the personal-resonance driven side and we can lay them side by side.
So, everyone waiting for my mechanics? ;)
Looks like we are all, indeed, sitting around waiting for each other to draft mechanics.....
Administrative points:
(1)
If you (whether your name is Tobias or not) have written up what you feel to be a reasonably comprehensive set of mechanics -- not just neat ideas as we've tossing around for most of this thread, but at least the outline of a system -- then please PM me before posting, as your ideas may warrant starting a new thread to focus on them specifically, rather than trying to shoehorn them into this now rather long thread.
(2)
Ron Edwards has politely asked me not to keep posting links to new threads to the "Index thread," which has now drifted off the first page of the forum, as that violates Forge etiquette on resurrecting old threads. His recommendation -- and I think it's a good one -- is that we set up a GroupDesign webpage of our own to provide a master set of links and (eventually) a downloading point for playtest rules. Since I have the web-expertise of a hamster, anyone willing to set this up should PM me. Many thanks.
I have no web design skills, minimal graphic design (I usually supervise) skills, and very strong writing, proofreading, and editing skills. I'd probably be willing to foot the bill (as long as it's a small bill) to have a real website, without tons of ads and the pop-ups that you tend to get with free sites.
We (Neo Prod) don't touch capacity on our site at all, so we can throw something up there no problem.
Better idea: anyone know of a nice little wiki/blog type program that could be thrown up with little fuss? Put that up on our server, and away we go ^_^
I am a highty experienced HTML, vbscript and .asp programmer.
Throwing up links is no problem. I don't have any experience with high quality forum, blog or wiki programs, though.
Joining a 'build your own wiki' community might be just as easy, though?
I will try to work out some mechanics over the weekend. I tried last evening as well, but my brain was thouroughly fried by my workweek.
More footly administrivia:
1) This discussion about creating our own website is vital, so vital it shouldn't be shoehorned into this thread. I've accordingly created a thread devoted to the topic over in the Publishing forum, here. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=147620#147620). Let's take our discussion of an online existence for GroupDesign there.
2) Anyone who has comments on the mechanics issues already raised in this thread, or small pieces of mechanics to offer, post away in this thread. Anyone who has a fairly complete set of mechanics, please PM me and I'll start a new thread to give your work the attention it deserves.
Don't have anything near solid mechanics yet. I keep going on the teeter-totter of 'why' and 'how' (do A's do anything).
The time-travel complexities don't help either. :)
I've been trying to solve the problem by writing up some Hypothetical Play, not really specifiying in my mind yet whether I want G, N, or S, but just what would be cool.
I get a vague image of scenes like Viking Raiders raiding a town protected by knight, cyberdine stuff, finding a relic, etc., but that all event or item-driven stuff (whereas I'm aiming more for person-driven). I could go back to event-/item-driven, but that would sound like a cop-out, and I would lose the nice tie to the Archivists' primary activity - possession.
You've got the entirety of time and the human world to select scenes from - and you're trying to affect the timeline. Tough stuff. I'm leaning towards granting the A's a measure of abstract comprehension (much like grandmaster chess players don't see individual chess piece positions, but a more general, almost intuitive feel, of the board's general state of game). This abstract comprehension would allow them to find scenes that are key to them, but actually proposing those scene's would be a power in the player domain. To not make it a solitary excercise, I want some mechanic that will interest people in the scene, and make them take a position on how that scene ends up (I'm still toying with the players being all the archivists there are. Maybe players not in the scene can play the antagonists? Maybe I need to look at Scarlet Wake, for this?) Whatever the outcome of the scene, it's impact is measured as deviation from the norm (history as we know it), since that will save me from having to define the norm (which would be something I find myself incapable of Simming).
Why would I play the game? Probably to do cool stuff that matters to the world in a cool backdrop. Be that Viking Raider, boost his strength, throw an axe into the evil knight that would've risen to King otherwise, etc. - and have it matter to how history plays out as well. Overcome the opposition (other players) and impose your vision/passion on history.
Why would a character become Archivist, leaving behind all the ties that make him human? Reasons vary. Perhaps all his loved ones have been slaughtered, and this is a great way to get back at those who did it. (Cliché, yes). Perhaps he's dysfunctional. Perhaps, after a long rewarding life, death is near anyway, and goals held in life can still be supported as Archivist. Why would the Archivist be interesting as a character after he's become other-than-human? Because he can still feel attachments to people in the human timestream (matching passions?). Because his fellow archivists will be very important to him as well (especially if they're also 'raw passions').
I'm tossing out things I want to be present in Hypothetical Play, to get me unstuck on my creative block on mechanics. Post your criticism, own hypo play, etc., what you want, if the foot allows it.
I think Tobias is onto something. I also think this current thread has run its course, so with my Mighty Foot Power I'm declaring it closed and starting a new thread devoted to Feel of Play (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=148003#148003).
Again, anyone who has a good chunk of mechanics worked out should PM me and we'll start a new thread devoted to that when we have something solid to sink our teeth into.